Does AT&T provide, "end-to-end" IPv4 IP Header Transport ? ....with the TOS field untouched ? Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com> To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
Thus spake "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
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
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
access, 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:
http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html "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: ssprunk@cisco.com