Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Jon Crowcroft]

 >>Any comments on the content of the draft? 

I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
discussion can proceed 

An ISP _hosts_ its own and customer's hosts.  Hosts follow the 
hosts requirements RFC, at least.

An ISP uses routers to interconnect its, its customers, and other to ISPs
networks, Routers follow the router requirements RFC, at least.

Service Organisations that don't allow a host or router that follows the above
definition to excercise capabilities defined are what we now know as
Content Service Providers, and must provide application level gateways, 
Application Service Providers, and offer portals or ALGs. In each case there
may be good performance or security reasons for this mode of service, but
there will usually be lack of flexibility or ease of introdution to new
services, content and applications in general. 

personal comment
Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in 
other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-)

cheers
j.

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Masataka Ohta]

Jon;

>  >>Any comments on the content of the draft? 
> 
> I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
> a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
> discussion can proceed 

My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
RFC.

It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
of various bodies including IETF.

> An ISP _hosts_ its own and customer's hosts.  Hosts follow the 
> hosts requirements RFC, at least.
> 
> An ISP uses routers to interconnect its, its customers, and other to ISPs
> networks, Routers follow the router requirements RFC, at least.

They are requirements by IETF.

Worse, even in IETF, there is no Internet Standard of router requirements
yet and the newest revision to the Proposed Standard is BCP.

So, please don't attempt to rely on it.

> Service Organisations that don't allow a host or router that follows the above
> definition to excercise capabilities defined are what we now know as
> Content Service Providers, and must provide application level gateways, 
> Application Service Providers, and offer portals or ALGs. In each case there
> may be good performance or security reasons for this mode of service, but
> there will usually be lack of flexibility or ease of introdution to new
> services, content and applications in general. 

I think my draft covers the case to make such network providers
not ISPs.

> personal comment
> Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
> internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
> and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
> organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in 
> other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-)

I just want to make it illegal for these types of organisations call
their service "Internet" or "internet".

It's something like "Olympic".

Masataka Ohta

Re: Speakers - WAP CONVENTION - The European Event

[Jon Knight]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Rosie Drugeault wrote:
> why don't you come along to WAPconvention 2000 and give our delegates that
> warm fuzzy feeling with the real story?

'Cos I've got better things to do with my time than go to conventions. ;-)

Tatty bye,

Jim'll

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Randy Bush]

>> I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
>> a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
>> discussion can proceed 
> 
> My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
> RFC.
> 
> It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
> of various bodies including IETF.

of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and
find new business models.

randy

MPLS Global Summit

[Ann Pendleton]

MPLS Global Summit taking place October 3-4, 2000 at the Fairmont Copley
Plaza in Boston, MA.   

As you may know this is ICM's third MPLS event.  The program has been
recognized as one of the leading industry events.  The most recent gathering
in San Diego attracted approximately 250 representatives from leading
carriers and organizations worldwide.

Over the past year, MPLS has received a great deal of attention as the next
great traffic engineering solution.  The core benefits of MPLS have been
widely promoted and now carriers must examine how MPLS can enhance their
networks and services in a manner that extends benefits to their customers.
Join us for this two tracked, information-packed event.

Further information and registration details are available online at
www.IT-TelecomSolutions.com  .  

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Keith Moore]

> of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and
> find new business models.

not bloody likely.  some things are inexcusable.  munging data in
transit is one of them.  the fact that you may have a business
model that says you can make money doing something that is inexcusable
is not a justification for doing that thing.

I'm sick and tired of folks justifing all manner of brain damage
merely because they think they can make money at it.  you'd think
that they believe that the only purpose in life is to make money.

Keith

p.s. sorry to single you out, there are far worse culprits.

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Patrik Fältström]

At 21.43 -0400 00-07-10, Keith Moore wrote:
>not bloody likely.  some things are inexcusable.  munging data in
>transit is one of them.  the fact that you may have a business
>model that says you can make money doing something that is inexcusable
>is not a justification for doing that thing.

I don't see any problems people making money on weird 
NAT-munging-weirdo-webonly-wap things which they sell to customers, 
BUT, it is NOT Internet access.

I would not buy it, because I want Internet access.

What I oppose strongly, is that people sell weird stuff and call it Internet.

   paf

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Randy Bush]

>> of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and
>> find new business models.
> 
> not bloody likely.  some things are inexcusable.  munging data in
> transit is one of them.  the fact that you may have a business
> model that says you can make money doing something that is inexcusable
> is not a justification for doing that thing.
> 
> I'm sick and tired of folks justifing all manner of brain damage
> merely because they think they can make money at it.  you'd think
> that they believe that the only purpose in life is to make money.
> 
> Keith
> 
> p.s. sorry to single you out, there are far worse culprits.

have you tried valerian root tea?