nanog mailing list archives

Re: Major Labels v. Backbones


From: Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () five-elements com>
Date: 19 Aug 2002 12:11:24 -0400


On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:46, Owen DeLong wrote:
*snip*
Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set
the
destination IP address for the content.  The intervening backbones don't
do
that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are
modified
to send it along it's way.  The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the
originator of the communication.  There are two hosts which could be
argued
to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the
conversation.
The routers in between do not meet the test.
If this is the basis of your argument, multicast backbones would be a
legal liability.  How about a 1-800 conference circuit?  The concept is
the same, as is the level of content participation.  The difference is
the legal protection offered to the voice common-carrier is greater than
what is offered to IP carriers.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler               jsw () five-elements com
Software Development            Five Elements, Inc
http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/


Current thread: