North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: How many protocols...
igmp? On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Magnus Boden wrote: > Hello, > > multicasting has nothing to do with ipheader->protocol as far as I know. > So my definition doesn't consider multicasting. > > //Magnus > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:03:29AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > I dont provide multicast, am I not an ISP by your definition? I think so.. > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Levine wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > > Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM > > > > To: Magnus Boden > > > > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > > > > Subject: Re: How many protocols... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <[email protected]> > > > > > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. > > > > > It should be all ip protocols. > > > > > > > > > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what > > > > > the ipheader->protocol field is set to. > > > > > > > > There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters > > > > protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). > > > > Does that mean they're really not an ISP? > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't > > > consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my > > > "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Matt > > > -- > > > Matt Levine > > > @Home: [email protected] > > > @Work: [email protected] > > > ICQ : 17080004 > > > AIM : exile > > > GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF > > > "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody > > > appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX > > > > > > > > >
|