Jay R. Ashworth
jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Tue Aug 25 17:23:24 UTC 1998
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.
Jay R. Ashworth jra at 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
More information about the NANOG