|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions to Internap solves the problem. Just an idea. DJ > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Marshall Eubanks > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:56 PM > To: Sean Donelan > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones > > > > A question : > > Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they > sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4 > providers ? > > SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do > nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ? > > Marshall > > Sean Donelan wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > >>Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see > >>Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit > >>through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue > InterNAP? I guess > >>it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1 > >>providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever > they want. > >> > > > > The problem with BGP is you only see the "best" path more than one hop > > away. The network in question is reachable through transit > providers other > > than InterNAP, such as Concert. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/business/media/17MUSI.html > > > > The New York Times says the companies named in the suit are AT&T > > Broadband (not AT&T's backbone?), Cable & Wireless, Sprint Corporation > > and UUNet technologies. > > > > "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an > > early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the > case, saying > > it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the > > Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic. > > > > "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop > > everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to get > > access." > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of > Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements > > > T.M. Eubanks > Multicast Technologies, Inc > 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 > Fairfax, Virginia 22030 > Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 > e-mail : [email protected] > http://www.multicasttech.com > > Test your network for multicast : > http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ > Status of Multicast on the Web : > http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html > > >
|