North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?

  • Date: Tue Nov 21 14:58:14 2000

Does AT&T provide, "end-to-end" IPv4 IP Header Transport ?
....with the TOS field untouched ?

Jim Fleming

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Sprunk <[email protected]>
To: Roeland Meyer <[email protected]>; 'Shawn McMahon' <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police

> Thus spake "Roeland Meyer" <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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.
> If filtering is in the contract, it's hardly breach of contract to
> perform it.
> > 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.
> AT&T, I believe, was the first major provider to start filtering port
> 25; here's the relevant part of their contract:
> "AT&T reserves the right to block, filter or delete Unsolicited
> E-Mails."
> While it doesn't explicitly state how they intend to "block, filter or
> delete" spam, filtering port 25 by default can be reasonably construed
> to fit that definition, and is therefore within the contract.
> Ths is also promising:
> "don't send materials that contain viruses, worms, or any other
> destructive elements; ... You may not use or attempt to use the Service
> to violate its security or the security of systems accessible through
> it, ... you should secure your computer equipment so that only
> authorized users can gain access to your Service account."
> You could claim that these sections authorize blocking of QAZ et al,
> since the activity of worms is prohibited.  Also, customers are required
> to secure their computers to prevent intrusion, so leaving any blatantly
> insecure protocol like SMB enabled might be breach of contract.
> Wholesale blocking of SMB might even be allowed.
> Of course, I wouldn't want to use that logic in court, but a good lawyer
> could probably pull it off.  I'd prefer to insert more specific wording
> into the contract first.
> > The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such
> restiction
> > into your contracts and you will lose customers.
> As long as a user can request the filters be removed (as in AT&T's
> case), I doubt anyone will lose customers.  In fact, I've seen many ads
> for ISPs which promote their filtering service with the belief that it
> will bring them more customers.
> > Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose
> > court cases...big ones.
> If an ISP refuses to turn off unrequested filters, and the filters
> aren't in the contract, I can see a lawsuit.  I can also see the
> customer simply taking their business elsewhere and persuing the matter
> through the press.  As AGIS proved, that turned out to be far more
> effective than courts.
> Then again, nobody here seems to be suggesting mandatory filtering.  Why
> is there such a strong objection to opt-out filters, where a single call
> or email can get the filters turned off?  Is using a phone really that
> difficult?
> S
>      |          |         Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
>     :|:        :|:        Network Design Consultant, GSOLE
>    :|||:      :|||:       New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX
> .:|||||||:..:|||||||:.    Email: [email protected]