Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

From: Anders Lindbäck (no email)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2008 - 10:52:33 EST

  • Next message: Joe Greco: "Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"

    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

    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.


  • Next message: Joe Greco: "Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD