In particular, it would be nice to have *some* term like "Full internet Connectivity" that defines the high-end service that really can't be credibly claimed by the lower-end services. I'm skeptical, however, that we can rescue the term "ISP" from the low-end services that already claim that label. Rather than fight over the pre-existing term "ISP", why not try to converge on a new term with a more clearly defined meaning from day one, based on a document from the IETF? After all, the low-end services can legitimately claim to provide *some* Internet services, just not *most* of them, which makes them in some sense "Partial ISP's" and unlikely to give up the "ISP" label willingly. Instead, we could invent (and try to popularize) a new term such as "Complete High-End Internet Service Providers" (CHISPs) or "Providers of Internet General Services" (PIGS). :-)
Anyway, I fear that trying to convince a bunch of low-end providers not to call themselves ISPs is about hopeless as trying to convince people who believe in massive budget deficits and preemptive wars not to call themselves conservatives. -- Nathaniel
On Jun 20, 2004, at 9:43 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hadmut Danisch;
Do you think a NAT provider an ISP?
But if we had a precise definition and a taxonomy of the different classes of ISPs,
Then, all the IP and non-IP providers can now leagaly (some illegaly a little beyond the scope of so generous RFC) say they are ISPs and most end users have no chance to know the differences of the taxonomy.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf