RE: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones

["Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>]

Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at
that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions
to Internap solves the problem.

Just an idea.

DJ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
>
>
>
> A question :
>
> Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they
> sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4
> providers ?
>
> SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do
> nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ?
>
> Marshall
>
> Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >
> > > Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see
> > > Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit
> > > through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue
> InterNAP? I guess
> > > it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1
> > > providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever
> they want.
> > >
> >
> > The problem with BGP is you only see the "best" path more than one hop
> > away. The network in question is reachable through transit
> providers other
> > than InterNAP, such as Concert.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/business/media/17MUSI.html
> >
> > The New York Times says the companies named in the suit are AT&T
> > Broadband (not AT&T's backbone?), Cable & Wireless, Sprint Corporation
> > and UUNet technologies.
> >
> >   "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an
> >   early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the
> case, saying
> >   it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the
> >   Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic.
> >
> >   "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop
> >   everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to get
> >   access."
>
>
> --
>                                   Regards
>                                   Marshall Eubanks
>
> This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of
> Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements
>
>
> T.M. Eubanks
> Multicast Technologies, Inc
> 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
> Fairfax, Virginia 22030
> Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
> e-mail : tme () multicasttech com
> http://www.multicasttech.com
>
> Test your network for multicast :
> http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
>   Status of Multicast on the Web  :
>   http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html