Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
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
All together now... "No one cares, Jim". - Dan Golding -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM To: klensin@jck.com; mcade@att.com; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ? 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
From: Sonia Arrison <sarrison@pacificresearch.org> To: "'canucks@canadiansintheus.com'" <canucks@canadiansintheus.com> Subject: CANUCKS: High speed Net access not an essential Canadian service - yet Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:16:33 -0800 X-URL: Canucks is at http://www.canadiansintheus.com/
And here's some background on the high speed Net access debate in the U.S.:
http://www.handsofftheinternet.org/NewsAction.asp?FormMode=Articles&ID=1742 541301
http://www.pacificresearch.org/issues/tech/00-03forcedaccess.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
******** -
---------------------------------- http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_Futu reTenseContentServer=d565d47d87474ca6&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1& c=Article&cid=974494446237&call_page=TS_Business&call_pageid=968350072197&ca ll_pagepath=Business/News CRTC eyes gripes over high-speed Net service Regulator could deem connection essential service Tyler Hamilton Technology Reporter
Canada's telecommunications regulator says consumers who are fed up with poor high-speed Internet services have a reason to be concerned and he may have to look at the matter more closely. David Colville, vice-chairman of telecommunications of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, told The Star yesterday that the commission hasn't designated high-speed Internet service essential ``yet.'' ``But I recognize that among small businesses in particular it's becoming that,'' he said, adding that the CRTC is aware of the network and customer service problems related to high-speed products from Bell Canada and Rogers Cable.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANUCKS -- the moderated mailing list for Canadians living in the U.S. For details, visit http://www.canadiansintheus.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Golding <dan@netrail.net> To: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>; <klensin@jck.com>; <mcade@att.com>; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES <smb@att.com> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: RE: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
All together now... "No one cares, Jim".
- Dan Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM To: klensin@jck.com; mcade@att.com; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
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
And I could add, the ones that doesn't touch the TOS byte today, will probably do it tomorrow ... /Jesper On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 03:04:51PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
All together now... "No one cares, Jim".
- Dan Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM To: klensin@jck.com; mcade@att.com; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
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
I think we are in agreement. I am assuming that people will want to "touch" the TOS byte when they "create" a packet. I am also assuming that NANOG, as a group, would want to support "end-to-end" Internet services. That seems to imply that the NANOG people would endorse the notion of "what goes in comes out". That arrangement encourages "stability". It seems odd that we have all of these ICANN people running around telling everyone that the "stability" of the Internet needs to be preserved, and then on the other hand, people are flippantly claiming to have total disregard for the contents of packets as they transit the IPv4 "cloud". To top it off, some companies apparently want to be seen as "proud" or "cool" for changing the contents of customer's packets. ...and then want to be called...."real operators"...go figure... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk> To: Daniel Golding <dan@netrail.net> Cc: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>; <klensin@jck.com>; <mcade@att.com>; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES <smb@att.com>; <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
And I could add, the ones that doesn't touch the TOS byte today, will probably do it tomorrow ...
/Jesper
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 03:04:51PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
All together now... "No one cares, Jim".
- Dan Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM To: klensin@jck.com; mcade@att.com; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
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
participants (3)
-
Daniel Golding -
Jesper Skriver -
JIM FLEMING