I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call
out criminality and incitement to violence, for example:
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy
Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new
territory?
As with common carriage and net neutrality, the discrimination has to be
consistent.
Sent from Mobile Device
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote:
>
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a
> customer on the bas
>
> Sounds like you're making a/the case for MACSec :-).
>
While I get your point, and it is a good one, no. Once lawyers, finance, and
other functions get involved, it goes from being just another technology, to a
pain for suppliers and customers alike. Export laws complicate implementation
> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> For operators already offering FR/ATM services, it was a replacement, using
>> the same principles of traffic separation over a common infrastructure,
>> without encryption as part of the service. So from that perspective only, it
>> was
> On Sep 17, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/Sep/20 23:22, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>
>> It depends on the definition of VPN. In terms of services like
>> MPLS-based VPNs, it refers to the extension of a Private network
>> over a shared infrastructure, allowing entities usi
5 matches
Mail list logo
