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