On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org wrote:
Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get
access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO
presence. Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:34 AM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Jack Bates wrote:
And yet, I'm pretty sure there are providers that have different pipes for
business than they do for consumer, and probably riding some of the same
physical medium. This creates saturated and unsaturated
Bill Stewart wrote:
A very common design is that businesses can get diffserv (or the MPLS
equivalents) on end-to-end services provided by ISP X, but the peering
arrangements with ISP Y don't pass diffserv bits, or pass it but
ignore it, or use different sets of bits. It's very frustrating to me
bleeping $whatever folk. qos is about whose packets to drop. who
here is paid to drop packets?
if this was $customer-list, i could understand wanting to drop some
packets on the link you were too cheap to provision reasonably (which is
pretty st00pid in today's pricing environment). but this
IMHO it's stupid for an ISP to intentionally design for and allow
bottlenecks to exist within their network. The bottleneck to the end
user is currently unavoidable, and users with bandwidth intensive uses
might prefer some prioritization (to their own specifications) on that
part of the
On Sep 17, 2010, at 5:20 46PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
wrote:
No, they bought ATT, which
Michael Sokolov wrote:
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice
in how much speed you want to pay for with each one.
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs
Jack Bates wrote:
And yet, I'm pretty sure there are providers that have different pipes
for business than they do for consumer, and probably riding some of
the same physical medium. This creates saturated and unsaturated
pipes, which is just as bad or worse than using QOS. The reason I'm
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their
service by introducing destination based priority on congested
In a message written on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:28:21PM +0200,
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
It may be hard for those in Europe to understand the situation in
the US, so let me
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 02AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than
another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider
So you are saying, it's perfectly okay to improve one service over another
by adding bandwidth directly to that service, but it's unacceptable to
prioritize it's traffic on congested links (which effectively adds more
bandwidth for that service). It's the same thing, using two different
On 9/17/2010 10:22 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
On a TCP/IP network, QOS features work by deprioritising traffic,
either by delaying
the traffic or by dropping packets. Many ISPs do deprioritise P2P
traffic to prevent
it from creating congestion, but that is not something that you can productize.
On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical,
not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other
interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point,
even the likes
On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:23 09AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds over
the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some cases, which
generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why shouldn't a content
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means,
only to see your carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a
check from Netflix?
Isn't this where competition/may the best provider win comes into play?
-Drew
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice
in how much speed you want to pay for with each one.
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there
On 9/17/2010 11:27 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com
http://hulu.com via this means, only to see your carrier de-prioritize
that traffic because they're getting a check from Netflix?
The same as I'd feel if netflix paid them for pop
On 9/17/2010 11:43 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means,
only to seeyour carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a
check from Netflix?
Isn't this where competition/may the best provider win comes into play?
In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves?
Does that mean no ISPs who buy/rent last+middle mile transport
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
Part of the reason for this is U-Verse is FTTN, Fiber to the Node.
ATT has run fiber to my neighborhood, I believe the node in my
case is about 1000 feet away (I drive past it on the way out). The
electronics sit there, so the old model of colocating in
On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their
It's a matter of viewpoint. It's convenient to talk about net-neutrality when
it's
scoped, but not when we widen the scope. Customer A gets better service than
Customer B because he want to a site that had prioritization. Never mind that
while they fight over the saturated link, Customer C
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than
another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider
Jack Bates wrote:
Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade
bandwidth?
No. Today a provider doesn't move packets *within their network* faster
or slower based on if the recipient is a consumer or business customer.
Today, all providers move all packets as fast as
On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice
in how much speed you want to pay for with each one.
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO,
George Bonser wrote:
I believe a network should be able to sell priotitization at the edge,
but not in the core. I have no problem with Y!, for example, paying a
network to be prioritized ahead of bit torrent on the segment to the end
Considering yahoo (as any other big freemailer) is
On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality.
Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms and
conditions, not identical service or traffic levels.
Charging content providers for higher class
On 9/17/2010 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Jack Bates wrote:
Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade
bandwidth?
Prioritization necessarily involves moving some traffic slower (because
you can't move traffic faster) than some link (within the provider's
network) allows, to
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
No, they bought ATT, which [...] But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of
the new ATT.
As for the two /8s -- not quite. Back in the 1980s, ATT got 12/8. We soon
learned that we couldn't make good use of it,
Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
No, they bought ATT, which [...] But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of
the new
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality.
Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms
and conditions, not identical service or traffic
In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves?
I found someone off list with access to Megapath's Partner
I have the same problem getting decent fiber out here. They keep
wanting to do a loop clear back to the other side of the state. I will
jsut keep building out my towers to towns where I know I can co-lo or
get QMOE at least.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
inline...
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:15 -0700, George Bonser wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that paid prioritization only
really has an impact once there is congestion. If your buffers are
empty, then there is no real benefit to priority because everything is
still being sent
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:15 AM, George Bonser wrote:
I believe a network should be able to sell priotitization at the edge,
but not in the core. I have no problem with Y!, for example, paying a
network to be prioritized ahead of bit torrent on the segment to the end
user but I do have a
On 9/16/2010 8:19 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
end user
I DO have a problem with a content provider paying to get priority access on
the last mile. I have no particular interest in any of the content that Yahoo
provides, but I do have an interest in downloading my Linux updates via
torrents.
Your statement misses the point, which is, *who* gets to decide what
traffic is prioritized? And will that prioritization be determined by
who is paying my carrier for that prioritization, potentially against
my own preferences?
I would say that with standard run of the mill consumer
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:44 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
Your statement misses the point, which is, *who* gets to decide what
traffic is prioritized? And will that prioritization be determined by
who is paying my carrier for that prioritization, potentially against
my own
On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:57 AM, George Bonser wrote:
I DO have a problem with a content provider paying to get priority
access on the last mile. I have no particular interest in any of the
content that Yahoo provides, but I do have an interest in downloading
my Linux updates via torrents.
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:44 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Your statement misses the point, which is, *who* gets to decide what
traffic is prioritized? And will that prioritization be determined by
who is paying my carrier for that prioritization, potentially against
my own preferences?
I would
Will the provider unbundle the components so that it's feasible for a
niche vendor to sell me custom connection services?
No?
Then the provider doesn't get to decide.
It's about control. As the customer, the guy with the green, I should
have it. A combination of decisions on the
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:17 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
SNIP
The point is that if the provider is deciding based on some
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Will the provider unbundle the components so that it's feasible for a
niche vendor to sell me custom connection services?
No?
Then the provider doesn't get to decide.
It's about control. As the customer, the guy with the green, I
On 9/16/2010 2:28 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product.
+1
Next we'll be arguing that akamai nodes are evil because they can have
better service levels than other sites. The p2p guys are also getting
special treatment, as they can grab
as that only gives an incentive to congest the network
to create revenue.
G
-Original Message-
From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:h...@efes.iucc.ac.il]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:22 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized
Traffic
In the early internet, let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
wasn't price etc, it was:
During the pre-1990's, I doubt any of the Internet founders were thinking
of how to pay for networks other than asking for more grant money. ARPA and
friends paid the bills, and asked for things
On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
And let's not forget that the article which came up with the title of this
thread equates IETF with Internet Founders and is talking about the 1990s
and the introduction of diffserv.
If that's the case, the proceedings of ISOC's INET '98
Since I am a dinosaur and remember what was going on then ( one of
many on this list I am sure )
1) There was no clue that what we have today would develop.
2) General solutions to what were then abstract problems caused a lot
of open things to be thrown around.
And what does this appeal to the
* Leo Bicknell:
Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
advertising applied. If my provider advertises 8 Mbps service
then I should be able to get 8 Mbps from Google, or Yahoo, or you,
or anyone else on the network, provided of course they have also
purchased an 8
On 9/13/10 5:39 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Barry Shein wrote:
In the early internet, let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
wasn't price etc, it was:
1. ARPA/ONR (and later NSF) Research sites and actual network research
2. Faculty with funding from 1 at major
On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
Would you object to an ISP model where a content
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:47:38 EDT, Dave Sparro said:
Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay to
get an ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a dynamic basis?
It would look something like my Road Runner PowerBoost(tm) service, only
it never cuts off when the
Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay to get an
ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a dynamic basis?
Yes - and the reason is extremely simple. There are a lot of ISPs and a lot of
plans. If I'm an entrepreneur looking to build Hulu from the ground up in a
On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
On 9/14/2010 1:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also
Dave Sparro wrote:
I just don't see a way to get passed the current impasse.
The consumers are saying I want faster, as long as I don't have to
pay more.
Content providers are saying, If consumers had faster, I'd be able to
invent 'Killer App'. I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their
The consumers are saying I want faster, as long as I don't have to pay more.
Content providers are saying, If consumers had faster, I'd be able to invent
'Killer App'. I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their networks.
ISPs are saying, Why should we upgrade our networks, nobody is willing to
On 9/14/2010 4:02 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
The consumers are saying I want faster, as long as I don't have to pay more.
Content providers are saying, If consumers had faster, I'd be able to invent
'Killer App'. I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their networks.
ISPs are saying, Why should we
On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 9/14/2010 1:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:06:03 -0700
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:44:40AM -0500, Brian Johnson
wrote:
OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
I'm against more regulation and for competition.
On September 14, 2010 at 00:49 williams.br...@gmail.com (Bruce Williams) wrote:
And what does this appeal to the ancient wisdom have to do with
technology and business today anyway?
The article claimed that ATT is claiming (to the FCC I think it was)
that net non-neutrality was an early
On Sep 14, 2010, at 9:30 32PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On September 14, 2010 at 00:49 williams.br...@gmail.com (Bruce Williams)
wrote:
And what does this appeal to the ancient wisdom have to do with
technology and business today anyway?
The article claimed that ATT is claiming (to the FCC
Is it remotely relevant what the founders anticipated? I doubt they
anticipated Amazon, Ebay and Google too.
On 9/13/10, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
-Hank
--
Sent from my mobile device
William McCall, CCIE
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
against it when it comes to net access.
Sent from my iPhone 4.
On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
rodrick.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
so
many are against it when it comes to net access.
Because of net
Why not, we (collectively) already pay for peering either directly or
indirectly through restrictive peering policies.
Jeff
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Julien Gormotte jul...@gormotte.info wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
rodrick.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Its
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:28:09AM -0400, Rodrick Brown wrote:
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
against it when it comes to net access.
Because I pay my ISP for internet
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:40:10PM +, Julien Gormotte wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
rodrick.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
so
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
[cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
now please?]
Of course Hitler was the first to propose pay-to-play internet
traffic. :)
Consumers are more in need of regulatory protection than
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe
Provo
wrote
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:44:40AM -0500, Brian Johnson
wrote:
OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
I'm against more regulation and for competition.
Competition would be wonderful, but is simply not practical in many
cases. Most people
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
No, the founders anticipated source-declared priorities for unpaid
military and government traffic. Commercial Internet really wasn't on
their radar.
On
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:05 AM
To: Hank Nussbacher
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
SNIP
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rodrick Brown
On 13.09.2010 18:52 Tim Franklin wrote
Exactly like electricity and gas - I only have one set of wires /
pipes to my house, but there's a plethora of companies I can choose
to buy energy services from.
Sounds like paradise to me.
Just my 0.02€,
Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper / nIPper
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Barry Shein wrote:
Oh and one more thing...
In the early internet, let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
wasn't price etc, it was:
1. ARPA/ONR (and later NSF) Research sites and actual network research
2. Faculty with funding from 1 at major university research
76 matches
Mail list logo
