Yet another person who wasn't going to say anything, but....
If you prefer not to read this, here is a cisco configuration which
will fix it
config t
no ip routing
For the clue-impaired, it is not advised you follow any of preceeding
or succeeding advice without consultation with a competent advisor.
>As for the equipment issue, I feel little sympathy. I have had to go in
>and clean up swamp pits of archaic hardware and software. I am not saying
>that's what you are, but I am saying that the service providers are quite
>reasonable in setting minimum hardware standards for BGP customers. Remember
I think the concern isn't over the service provider setting minimum
standards for BGP customers, but the open-ended nature of the service
provider unilaterally change their standards. Normally a material
change to the service by the provider allows the customer to decide
if they want to continue with the revised service, remain with the
existing service, or end the service without penalty.
>And finally. Life's too short to obsess about these kinds of issue.
The time to worry about contracts is before there is a problem. Although
there are a lot of badly written contacts, and I would walk away from
them rather than trying to 'educate' the provider. In practice most of
the terms exist to cover a problem that happened in the past. Telco
affiliated ISP's use the boilerplate prohibiting you from using their
name due to the number of long-distance telephone resellers that used
to call people at dinner time and say they where calling on behalf of
AT&T, but were actually a boiler room operation in Nevada whose only
connection to AT&T was the logo on the telephone equipment they were
using.
Useful boilerplate language exists, see your lawyer:
"The customer may advise end users that certain services are
provided by the Company in connection with the service the customer
furnishes to end users; however, the customer shall not represent that
the Company jointly participates in the customer's services."
Similar boilerplate exists for most of the things Forrest Christian is
worried about. But dealing with lawyers at billion dollar companies is
often an exercise in futility. Unfortunately most NSP contracts cover
all the reasons why the NSP can terminate service without notice, but
don't actually bind the NSP to providing an adequate level of service
or any service in some cases. I would worry about ISPs with 'simple'
contracts as much as ISPs with 'complex' contracts. Simple contracts
are harder to write well.
Most Acceptable Use Policies actually read like unacceptable use policies.
The NSF AUP listed eight acceptable uses and only two unacceptable uses.
>If you run your ISP right, these won't be a problem. If you don't run
>your ISP right, these won't be your real problem. In the time you have
>been upset about this, you could have a well written AUP with procedures
>in place that would make any transit provider happy.
You are making a big assumption. If it would have made the transit
provider happy, why didn't the transit provider contract list this as
an acceptable option? Even if the salesperson says its ok, six months
later after the salesperson is long gone, and there is a problem will
there be any record the transit provider found the ISP's AUP or ISP's
procedures acceptable. Or will they apply the one strike and you are
out rule, and terminate service without notice.
Unless it is included within the four corners of the contract, I would
not make any assumptions about what would or would not keep any transit
provider happy over the lifespan of the contract. Although, if the transit
provider is unhappy, I suspect they will find some reason to terminate
the service irregardless.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
