Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

[Anders Lindbäck <list-only () dnz se>]

Nice interpretation of my statement..

A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different  
things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable  
for instance.

My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure  
situation and in Sprints case unless you have a contract that defines  
an SLA with delivery to "the entire Internet" or something similar  
you do not really have case to break your contract or sue due to the  
de-peering as a breach of contract from Sprints side..

------------------------------
Anders Lindbäck
anders.lindback () dnz se

On 2 nov 2008, at 16.39, Joe Greco wrote:

> > Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that
> > contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of
> > a limit in your contract.
> >
> > There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
> > adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery
> > guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a
> > carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance
> > since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine.
> >
> > What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit
> > effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they
> > deliver really..
>
> Based on that logic, it sounds like a fine time for me to get into the
> wireless market.  I can save a ton of money by getting a 56k dialup  
> line
> to $9.95/mo-company as an upstream connection, and just saying that I
> don't guarantee delivery of packets, and if my upstream service gets
> terminated for some reason, hey, my view of the Internet is pretty  
> small.
>
> Come on.  Really, an ISP has to make a reasonable effort to be able to
> reach other arbitrary destinations on the Internet.  That they  
> might not
> be able to promise access to obscure networks in the farthest portions
> of China on the end of two tin cans and a string is obvious.  But when
> they can't get traffic across the street because they're actively
> buggering routes from an AS, well, that's different.
>
> ... JG
> --
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http:// 
> www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance  
> [and] then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e- 
> mail spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too  
> many apples.