North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: more on filtering
[email protected] wrote: >> I don't see how that is the same thing here. I have an >> agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with >> my AUP. cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc. cust Y >> is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with >> cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y. > Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers. > > I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are > NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by > reference in the other. They aren't legally, but they are effectively. If X must abide by your AUP, then any traffic they forward for Y must also abide by your AUP (or whatever penalties are in your contract with X will kick in) - it doesn't matter what X's contract with Y says, as your contract is with X and any penalties are to be applied to X; It is therefore in X's best interest to insist Y abides by the AUP or indemnifies X for any penalties, and/or negotiates with you to make sure only Y's traffic is cut off on breach of the AUP by Y, rather than all traffic from X.