Re: Problem of blocking ICMP packets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mike S)


> So the fact is, by blocking ICMP, such ISPs have broken IP connectivity, 
> and can no longer claim to be providing Internet (IP) service.

I agree, but which flavor of other than "Full Internet Connectivity"
would it be?  Does
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-02.txt
need a category of "Public address, stupid filtering"?
Or is "Client only, public address" close enough?

Many people who install or defend such stupid filters are offended by
the observation that they are not doing real IP.  Labelling such
filtered access as what it is or at least something other than "Full
Internet Connectivity" would reduce its popularity.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]