Re: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?

["JIM FLEMING" <jfleming () anet 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
> > access,
> > > 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
> > 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