Due to incompetence I sent different messages to the list and to Bob. This
is what they both should have said:
We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide
bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside
the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and
there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the
IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that's no different than
buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to maximize the
advertising revenue.
That is a distinction that can be made. But unless it's clear and universal
it's problematic.
Do you consider IP as being the responsibility of your IAP?
If you're talking about "packets" I guess you do.
If an IAP is help responsible for traffic originating at one of their IPs
(e.g. blacklisting) then they'll have a strong incentive to control other
higher level protocols (eg port 25).
I'm not sure that this distinction is made widely enough for it to be
useful.
--
We
need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide bit (or
packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside the network. Most
people buy both services from the same company and there is no wall between the
two in that the ISP is tempted to help the IAP part of the business reduce
traffic. But that’s no different than buying a newspaper which chooses
and positions stories to maximize the advertising revenue.
Like many,
I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should make a distinction between
basic protocols and services that an ISP can provide. It shouldn’t
presume that the purpose of the ISP is to make the IAP more profitable by
reducing the traffic.
Bob Frankston
rmf19(_at_)bobf(_dot_)frankston(_dot_)com
|
--