Imagine the sceanrio, customer calls ISP, " hey I cant connect to my work VPN through your connection", ISP, "Ahah, you need our business service, not the $20/m home user service, let me put you through to a business service sales person who'll be happy to take your $50/m, then you'll be able to work from home"
> -----Original Message----- > From: Crist J. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:34 PM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: How many protocols... > > > > Stephen Sprunk wrote, > > Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp > and icmp. It > > > should be all ip protocols. > > > > > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't > care what > > > the ipheader->protocol field is set to. > > > > There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 > > (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP? > > If they are an ISP they are an aggressively clueless ISP. Why > on Earth would you block ESP? Some strange marketing ploy to > charge more to allow people to use VPNs? Ever heard of > transport mode? Does it actually cost them more to move ESP > packets than TCP/UDP/ICMP packets? Are they under some > mistaken impression ESP would be a bandwidth hog? Do they > block GRE (protocol 47)? Do they block Checkpoint's FWZ > (protocol 94)? Or any of the other zillion VPN protocols > (some which ride over TCP and UDP too)? > > Exactly which ISP does this? They deserve some public > humiliation for doing something that breathtakingly stupid to > their customers. > -- > Crist J. Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
<<application/ms-tnef>>