|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical more on filtering
> >The way currently people propose everyone operates is equivalent to a > >company that transmits AC to customer deciding that some part of the AC > >waveform is "harmful" to its equipment, and therefore should be filtered > >out. Of course, no one bothers to tell the customer that the filter exists, > >or what is being filtered, or when, or how. > > So, electric grids do not have any mechanisms to disconnect from other > grids ( ie, stop "transiting" their electricity ) if one is doing something > that causes problems on the local grid? As a customer I would very > much like my provider to filter out waveforms that would prevent their > ability to provide me with my service. They disconnect the SOURCE of the problem forcing the SOURCE to behave. That is equivalent of forcing the ES to behave. > If the issue is how to communicate what is being filtered to the customer, > then simply need to find a way to do that. The solution to "it is hard to > communicate what is being filtered to the end-users" is not "oh well, > we won't filter anything". At least not as I see it. Traffic to port X cannot be specified as valid or invalid for any IS, because the IS does not know why such traffic exists. Traffic ES<->ES on port X can be valid or invalid because ES knows if it is valid traffic. If you want to filter that traffic, filter it for a specific ES (the one that does not want it) and force whoever is sending you that traffic to play nicely. It is DIFFERENT from saying "We drop all packets that match port X" > Supposing a network *did* provide a way to inform customers what was > being filtered. Would you still object to the filtering? If I request that traffic, of course I would object! > >Another excellent example - UPS will not remove that. The shipper will. > > How? I'm the shipper. I put the RF generating device into package and > give it to UPS. They will do nothing to remove it or not ship it? > It is only up to me to not do it? Al Qaeda would love that to be > true I'm sure. :) After that package is removed, you, the shipper, are going to have your hands slapped very hard, which will force you in future to behave. By doing this, we successfully enforced ES filtering. > >The first part of any legal agreement establishes the parties subject to it. > >That is exactly what you are missing while being an IS. > > There is a chain of agreements connecting you to the source/dest of > any traffic on your network. Even if it is a customer of a customer > of a customer, you have a chain of agreements that establishes you > as a party. > > In what scenario would there not be a chain of agreements to connect > you as a party? Even if I have agreement with you that you sell me a GSR for $5.00, which you have agreement with RS to get from him, I do not have agreement with RS that lets me get the GSR from him for $5. Alex
|