North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
- From: Deepak Jain
- Date: Mon Aug 19 13:08:47 2002
Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at
that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions
to Internap solves the problem.
Just an idea.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
> A question :
> Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they
> sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4
> providers ?
> SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do
> nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ?
> Sean Donelan wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >>Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see
> >>Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit
> >>through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue
> InterNAP? I guess
> >>it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1
> >>providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever
> they want.
> > The problem with BGP is you only see the "best" path more than one hop
> > away. The network in question is reachable through transit
> providers other
> > than InterNAP, such as Concert.
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/business/media/17MUSI.html
> > The New York Times says the companies named in the suit are AT&T
> > Broadband (not AT&T's backbone?), Cable & Wireless, Sprint Corporation
> > and UUNet technologies.
> > "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an
> > early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the
> case, saying
> > it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the
> > Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic.
> > "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop
> > everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to get
> > access."
> Marshall Eubanks
> This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of
> Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements
> T.M. Eubanks
> Multicast Technologies, Inc
> 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
> Fairfax, Virginia 22030
> Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609
> e-mail : email@example.com
> Test your network for multicast :
> Status of Multicast on the Web :