Re: How many protocols...

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

igmp?


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Magnus Boden wrote:

> Hello,
>
> multicasting has nothing to do with ipheader->protocol as far as I know.
> So my definition doesn't consider multicasting.
>
> //Magnus
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:03:29AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > I dont provide multicast, am I not an ISP by your definition? I think so..
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Levine wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> > > > Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM
> > > > To: Magnus Boden
> > > > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
> > > > Subject: Re: How many protocols...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb () ozaba cx>
> > > > > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp.
> > > > > It should be all ip protocols.
> > > > >
> > > > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what
> > > > > the ipheader->protocol field is set to.
> > > >
> > > > There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters 
> > > > protocol 50 (IPsec ESP).
> > > > Does that mean they're really not an ISP?
> > > >
> > > > S
> > > They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't
> > > consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my
> > > "Internet experience".  I'd feel the same way if they filtered google.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matt
> > > --
> > > Matt Levine
> > > @Home: matt () deliver3 com
> > > @Work: matt () eldosales com
> > > ICQ  : 17080004
> > > AIM  : exile
> > > GPG  : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF
> > > "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody
> > > appreciates how difficult it was."  -BIX