Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
With the advent of DiffServ, intermediate nodes may modify the Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP) [RFC2474] of the IP header to indicate the desired Per-hop Behavior (PHB) [RFC2475, RFC2597, RFC2598]. The DSCP includes the three bits formerly known as the precedence field. Because any modification to those three bits will be considered illegal by endpoints that are precedence-aware, they may cause failures in establishing connections, or may cause established connections to be reset. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Hannan <alan@mindvision.com> To: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com> Cc: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:15 AM Subject: Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
This has been addressed in the appropriate standards bodies:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2873.txt
-alan
Thus spake JIM FLEMING (jfleming@anet.com) on or about Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:33:30PM -0600:
In my opinion, the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end.... ...clients should set it....routers should leave it alone....
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: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> To: 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:29 PM Subject: RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples
Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the expectation is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is access, even when
customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in their access. That just assures you that they will go ballistic when they find out.
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. The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such restiction into your contracts and you will lose customers. Don't put
abound. the them
in and start filtering anyway and you will lose court cases...big ones.
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon@eiv.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:21 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
What doesn't make sense in that argument is why you
upsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that's
Educate them, and let them decide based on the education
couldn't just simply the concern. they received.
Because it doesn't just affect them; it affects you, your customers, and your business.
I wouldn't be so sure, particularly because of the legal exposure...
Does anybody have a live example of this supposed legal exposure, to counter all the many examples those of us who don't believe in it have given?
participants (1)
-
JIM FLEMING