Again we run into the thorny old policy issue of viewing the user as merely
a captive consumer.
But what happens when it turns out that to consume you need to run an
application not "supported" by the intervening network?
This is clearly a break of the principle of end to end application
transparency that the IP layer provides. This does necessarily break the
semantic description of Internet Service Provider. But there is little to be
done arguing that point now.
The problem as a travelling user (or as a housebound German it seems) is you
don't know what you are going to be able to do until you try and as a hotel
or end node provider you may legally have an obligation to try to protect
your network from being a source of abuse by transients.
A traveller cannot change ISP easily so either will just have to accept some
things cannot be done or will find a way. As it happens one can preplan and
setup a proxy service or a tunnel broker etc that can get round many of
Perhaps the IETF would be wiser to give a warning about the futility of
trying to break application transparency. "The Internet user may always find
a way to communicate on their own terms"
Christian de Larrinaga
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Sent: 20 June 2004 23:52
To: Hadmut Danisch
Subject: Re: What exactly is an internet (service) provider?
If by "IPSec" you mean what the marketing folks call VPN, then so far it
has worked just fine.
Muticast, VOIP and the rest of stuff you mention probably does NOT work,
but my point was that this is NOT what most business travellers want.
And, yes, I agree they should provide a matrix of what is available for
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:23:51PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
We can certainly have an argument about what is a reasonable price, but
I can do *exactly* the same things (read/send e-mail, browse the web,
transfer files, make connections to remote hosts via SSH, listen to BBC
Radio 4, etc.) as I can from inside the corporate network, then what
- How would you do a Voice-over-IP phone call with someone
else if both of you are in such a NAT-hotel-room?
- How do you join a multicast session (actually this is not
a matter of NAT, but of different levels of Internet services).
- I and some friends use a UDP based protocol to exchange
status messages with a central server. The next version
will allow to send notifications if mail has arrived
to avoid polling continuously. How would you do that?
(I'm sometimes using IP over GRPS with my cellphone, where
I receive a RFC1918 address, which is NATed. When I am awaiting
an important e-mail, I have to poll every few minutes. Polling
over GPRS is expensive. The provider which seems to be the cheaper
could turn out to be more expensive.)
- How would you do IP-address based authorization
(e.g. RMX/SPF/CallerID) if other people can have the
same IP address at the same time?
- IPSec through NAT (if not UDP-encapsulated)?
- What about UDP or TCP protocols which run into the
- What about forensics? How do you track back an attack from
behind a hotel's NAT router?
I don't say that all hotels have to support full internet.
But I'd like to know what I pay for in advance and decide
whether it is sufficient for my needs before purchasing.
I've never seen hotel staff people who could explain what's
going on there. But if you give things a name, then they
can simple tell you what they offer without the need to
understand anything. They just need to learn
"We offer XXX service for x$ and YYY for y$".
And with home internet providers you can compare whether
the one for US$n-2 is really cheaper than the one with US$n.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list