Digex transparent proxying

Sun Jun 28 16:40:09 UTC 1998

In message <3.0.5.32.19980628013015.01253100 at priori.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmore" 
writes:
>At 10:28 AM 6/27/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>>Proxies are fine WHERE CUSTOMERS HAVE AGREED TO THEIR USE.
>>
>>STEALING someone's packet flow to force it through a proxy is NOT fine.
>
>I think this is the heart of Karl's argument.  (Karl, feel free to correct
>me if I'm wrong.)  The rest of the rant about how transparent caches, proxy
>server, etc. work and other opinions about how the Internet and web content
>will look in the future is ... not my concern at present.
>
>But the original topic is of great concern to me.  Is there one person on
>this list - even someone from DIGEX - who can give me one reason why
>altering the destination of a packet a customer paid you to deliver,
>without that customer's consent or foreknowledge, is in any way morally or
>ethically permissible?  Hell, for that matter, is it even legal?

OK, what about class of service?  This implies applying different sets
of rules to different class of packet flows, and implictly giving some
flows lower priority and dropping their packets.  The key is the customer
expectations, if they expect to lose packets and have slow performance,
they you can probably get away with it.

There is fundenmentally little difference between class of service
and transparent caching.

While I think Digex's move may be a little unusal, I would find
it difficult to believe there is anything contractual or legal that
prevents it.

It seems like a lot of moral grandstanding to me, but I guess I should
be used to that.  I would have expected better from most Nanog people
to use this as some sort of "My company is more ethical than your company
forum".  The average reader of Nanog is perfectly capable of judging
this for themselvs.

>I know that when my downstreams pay me for transit and give me a packet, I
>do my damnedest to get that packet TO THE DESTINATION.  If I can give my
>customers better service though proxy or caching or any other method, I
>will definitely OFFER it to them.  (We are currently looking into
>transparent and other caching techniques, but have not begun such an
>offering as of yet.)  However, I will not shirk my responsibility to
>deliver packets where the customer (rightfully) expects them to go without
>the customer's permission.  I find it repugnant that one of my peers has
>done so.  I would be interested in how other's feel about it - without all
>the discussion about whether caching is any use or not.
>
>>Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
>
>TTFN,
>patrick
>
>**************************************************************
>Patrick W. Gilmore                      voice: +1-650-482-2840
>Director of Operations, CCIE #2983        fax: +1-650-482-2844
>PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.                    http://www.priori.net
>              "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today"
>**************************************************************
>

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net