Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Digex transparent proxying

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Mon Jun 29 03:52:16 1998

At 11:40 AM 6/28/98 -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote:


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

I find that statement false-to-fact.  There is a very fundamental
difference.  One implies that at least an attempt (however low priority
that attempt is) will be made to deliver all packets to their
*destination*.  The other implies that absolutely no attempt will be made
to reach the desired destination in some instances.  You honestly do not
see a *fundamental* difference here?

I notice you still have completely avoided answering my question.  "Class
of service" is usually negotiated at the time of the contract being signed.
 DIGEX has made a *fundamental* change to the service they are providing
their customers with little or no attempt to fully disclose this change in
service to their paying customers.  (IMHO, that e-mail posted to NANOG was
a bad attempt at CYA, not a notification to their customers.  They probably
plan to point at that e-mail if they ever get hauled into court.  I hope it
proves as useless to DIGEX in court as it did to their downstreams in
troubleshooting problems.)

Once again I put the question: Is there ONE PERSON on this list who can
justify this type of behavior?  Even someone from DIGEX?

And before anyone goes off once again about how great caching is, I will
once again publicly state that I am not at all opposed to caching - even
forced caching of customers.  It's your network, do as you please.  But at
the risk of sounding like I am "morally grandstanding", I simply believe
you should TELL YOUR CUSTOMERS before you do something like this.  Is that
really too much to expect?  Jeremy, you don't think it's unreasonable for
people to follow Best Practices documents.  Would you find it unreasonable
for people to disclose these types of *fundamental* changes on their
network to their customers as "best practices"?

>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.

Others have disagreed with you.  I would have to see DIGEX's contract to be
sure myself.


>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.

Heh.  Now who's grandstanding?

As for the average NANOG reader, I would have to agree with you that they
are capable of thinking for themselves.  And they've probably have already
made up their minds without reading this thread.  Which is why I've asked
them to give me some input.  Lots of people here have thought about this a
lot more than I have, perhaps they would care to share their thoughts about
this issue?

>Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.


Patrick W. Gilmore                      voice: +1-650-482-2840
Director of Operations, CCIE #2983        fax: +1-650-482-2844
              "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today"

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.