Steve,
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
] You'll kindly notice that I mentioned application, not content, in my
] previous comments. As a Layer 2 network provider I have no interest in
] content (as I cannot survey what traffic goes on past above me).
] However, I am keenly interested in the collocation of certain host-based
] applications that may cause unnecessary traffic to be directed to the
] NAP.
I would assert that given that your concern centers on
applications, you are indeed looking higher up the stack than
layer 2, and that you are making judgements on content, and
purpose of use.
] There are a host (no pun intended) of other issues related to
] supporting hosts at the NAP, such as the excessive space and power they
] require, coordinating visits for maintenance and repair, security
] (physical and network), etc. I suspect that not all NAP operators are
] set up to take on the responsibilities of supporting these types of
] applications on their sites.
I'm not sure that I accept the assertion that hosts take more care
and feeding than routers... Perhaps it's true.
Regardless, thanks for your insight. I feel this issue will
someday soon become rather important.
-alan
] On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Alan Hannan wrote:
]
] >
] > Hmm.....
] >
] > NAP operators making judgement about content... Hmm... I wonder
] > if there are any applicable precedents here...
] >
] > -alan
] >
] > ......... Steven Schnell is rumored to have said:
] > ]
] > ] Convenient for some, a headache for others. Any responsible NAP operator
] > ] would have to either approve the application running on his network or
] > ] shutdown its unauthorized operation. You know, like disable its
] > ] connection to the exchange point!
] > ]
] > ] steve
] > ]
] > ]
] > ] On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:
] > ]