Re: BBN/GTEI

["Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>]

On Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 07:13:22AM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
> > Pray someone doesn't write a call-back protocol, so traffic flows in
> > the opposite direction from the original initiator of the IP 'transaction'.
>
> FTP already does this. Nevertheless, the largest number of bytes still
> flows in the same direction as it would with HTTP. I think you are
> agreeing with me that the initiator of the transaction is irrelevant.

Michael, you've always struck me as one of the saner inhabitants of
this list -- which I guess really translates as "you and I almost
always have the same outlook on things" :-) -- but this must be where
we part company.

In the current context, which I would translate as "who is responsible
for the bytes moving over a link -- and therefore ought to pay for it",
it's pretty obvious to _me_ that if Exodus' customers are sending data
to GTEI's customers _because the latter requested it_, then Exodus
ought not, in equity, to be considered "responsible" for that data;
they were just doing as asked.

> I would go further and say that the customers of the peers and their actions
> are also irrelevant to the peering relationship.

On this, hoewver, I agree.  The real breakage here is GETI attempting
to redefine "peering".  The net got where it is today as a
"non-settlement" network.  Any plan to change that would have to be
documented in about 50 pages for me to buy it.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra () baylink com
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "Two words: Darth Doogie."  -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida             on alt.fan.heinlein             +1 813 790 7592

Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com