Horrid? Strong words. What's horrid about allowing an ISP to prefer that their BGP traffic has a higher priority than end-user traffic, so that the whole net doesn't fail when pipes are overprescribed, or there is a virus/worm on the net? What's horrid about allowing an end-user to decide which of its traffic should be dropped first, if by definition some traffic HAS to be dropped due to over-prescription?
If you think it's horrid, then I'd like some examples, because I suspect that given certain specific scenarios you'd probably agree with what should happen (as neutral as can possibly be managed, and transparent). Thanks, Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS Senior Network Engineer Coleman Technologies, Inc. 954-298-1697 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Musbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:31 AM > To: Fred Reimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet > > On Nov 27, 2007 7:18 AM, Fred Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The only discriminatory behavior that should be > > allowed is for QoS, to treat specific types or traffic in > a > > different manner to give preferential treatment to > specific > > classifications of traffic. > > > I myself and I'm sure most others prefer net neutrality to > the horrid > alternative you're suggesting > > > -- > Best Regards, > > John Musbach
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
