At 11:04 PM 1/30/2008, Cliff Sojourner wrote: >it's really simple, don't mess with my bits, or else you are liable for the >content.
With all due respect, this is simply not true. Merely by looking at the headers, without knowing the content of the packets, a provider can tell that you are violating the contract you made with it. And it has absolutely every right to enforce that contract. >don't mess with my bits means no packet forgery, A RST packet is not "forgery." Remember, a TCP session is identified by a tuple consisting of a source address (the source of the initial SYN), the destination address (the destination of the initial SYN), and the port numbers used by the two communicating processes. The protocol provides no other way of identifying that specific connection or issuing a command telling the participants to terminate it. A RST packet is a legitimate way of terminating a connection which violates the provider's terms of service. >and no disruption of payload bits. It's perfectly legitimate to change the payload when doing caching, when inserting an announcement for the users, and for many other reasons. Our ISP's terms of service, to which all our users agree, explicitly grant us permission to do this. >providers can shape the traffic, according to our agreed terms of service, but >they must be clearly stated and agreed to. you can not shape by source or >destination. Why not? Limiting the rate of traffic from spammers or abusers is a good thing. >tell me again, what is all the discussion about? Apparently, it is about attempts to regulate the Internet. Not by providers, but by third parties who would like to regulate and micromanage ISPs. --Brett Glass
