North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
Jim An exception to this is Diffserv. This issue was discussed at length in the diffserv WG and decided Diffserv DSCP remarking does not really violate this. Bora ----- Original Message ----- From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email protected]> To: "Roeland Meyer" <[email protected]>; "'Shawn McMahon'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." > > In my opinion, the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end.... > ...clients should set it....routers should leave it alone.... > > Jim Fleming > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Roeland Meyer <[email protected]> > To: 'Shawn McMahon' <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:29 PM > Subject: RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police > > > > > > Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples abound. > > Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the expectation > > is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is access, even when the > > customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in their access. That > > just assures you that they will go ballistic when they find out. > > > > Face it guys, you KNOW that this is basically dishonest. As such, it is > > indefensible. I would almost bet <amount> that none of the transit > providers > > mentions restrictions, on access, in their contracts. I would almost bet > > <1/2 amount> that NONE of the access providers mention same in THEIR > > contracts. The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such > > restiction into your contracts and you will lose customers. Don't put them > > in and start filtering anyway and you will lose court cases...big ones. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:21 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote: > > > > > > > > What doesn't make sense in that argument is why you > > > couldn't just simply > > > > upsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that's > > > the concern. > > > > Educate them, and let them decide based on the education > > > they received. > > > > > > Because it doesn't just affect them; it affects you, your customers, > > > and your business. > > > > > > > I wouldn't be so sure, particularly because of the legal exposure... > > > > > > Does anybody have a live example of this supposed legal exposure, to > > > counter all the many examples those of us who don't believe in it have > > > given? > > > > > > > > > > > >
|