Le mardi 20 mars 2018 à 09:07 -0700, David Bird a écrit :
>
> > > > 3. The notification should not be on a per-destination basis. A
> > > > hint that conveys the information "you can reach facebook, but
> > > > to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another service plan" is not
> > > > technically infeasible but is unlikely ever to reach WG and IETF
> > > > consensus and therefore I think we should not spend our time
> > > > talking about it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can't a network have this policy irrespective of how we implement
> > > ICMP? Can't they even today just use existing ICMP messages? I
> > > cringe when we start dictating how PUBLIC ACCESS networks manage
> > > their walled garden and businesses.
> > >
> >
> > My point was that there's no use in having that discussion, because
> > we know there are strong opinions on both sides and thus we're not
> > likely to get consensus.
>
>
> My point is that you are the one *making* this a discussion not likely
> to get consensus by loading the question with statements like "you can
> reach facebook, but to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another
> service plan" ... which isn't a problem with ICMP per se, rather how
> you don't like how some public access networks operate...
Yes, this is a strawman scenario. Entities that sell plans sell will
just parcel out bandwidth for stuff you haven’t paid for, they don’t
need such a mechanism, the entities that need it are networks where some
accesses are restricted for work or legal reasons.
Most walled gardens will want something like 'free access to
pr.institutionalsite.com/intranet.mybusiness.net/library.school.com',
downloading gigs of videos from youtube requires autorisation,
sex.xxx.com, playingatwork.net and examsolutions.cheater.org are
forbidden.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot