On 20 mar 2014, at 22:18, Meredith Whittaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your take is really interesting, Patrik, and exactly the kind of knowledge I > think RIPE and the broader technical community could inject into these > processes. It has been injected, repeatedly, but the level of clue among the ones actually writing the text is too low. And too many lobbyists want this bad vague language. > Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical > difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) > defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? Unknown to me. I do not know where the text is at the moment. Patrik > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based > network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. > That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results > in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get > whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or > whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 > network. > > If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? > > Patrik > > On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > > In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It’s no > > Internet. > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Innocenzo Genna > > *Genna Cabinet Sprl * > > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > > > Skype: innonews > > Twitter:@InnoGenna > > Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > > <http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/> > > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com <http://www.innocenzogenna.com> > > > > > > > > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik Fältström <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto: > > > >> > >> > >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications > >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, > >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity > >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not > >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; > >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and > >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] > >>> > >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the > >>> problem? > >>> > >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end > >>> network controlled by the service supplier. > >>> > >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. > >>> > >> > >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk > >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". > >> > >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all > >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. > >> > >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets > >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). > >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then > >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get > >> reordered). > >> > >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can > >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher > >> than some SLA for end users paying less). > >> > >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: > >> > >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their > >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what > >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) > >> > >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. > >> > >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have > >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. > >> > >> Patrik > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
