----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:44:13 -0400 From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]> 59D1B1B0-B6BC-11DF-B836-BA3EA77419C0:
Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> > Date: September 2, 2010 11:21:01 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: ip <[email protected]>, Richard Shockey <[email protected]>, Mike > Liebhold <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > >>> *From:* Richard Shockey <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > ... >>> Mike you pointed out several things that have been obvious to those of us in >>> the Internet Engineering Community for some time. First packet >>> discrimination >>> for various reasons, including congestion control, have been part of the >>> Internet Protocol suite since its inception. > > > Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service Neutrality > and Participant Neutrality. > > > Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the same > as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google get treated > the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from ietf.org. Differential > handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. > > Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, real-time > remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get treated > equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol field or the > TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality means that it is not possible > for the network infrastructure to support quality of service guarantees, such > as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) > > The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with the > potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability to use > another service. > > The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates to > potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. > > An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service Neutrality > is when two organizations have competing application protocols and one is > given preference. The preference appears to be based on the protocol but is > really concerned with who is operating the service. > > Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic > distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past each > other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the ability of the > Internet to properly support adequate operation of a service. > > Mike's note was clearly and strictly in terms of deployment of service > non-neutrality mechanisms. That is, differential handling of protocols. > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----
