funsec mailing list archives
Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet"
From: "Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:53:31 -0600
On 4/15/06, Fergie <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
This is one of my stronger areas. :-) In general terms, remember that electrical or optical signalling is _clocked_ into 'the network'.
err, what?
Don't confuse this with packet communications, which -- for all intents and purposes -- ride on tp of this, and is basically a 'ships in the night' service.
Still, well, so, err, umm.. SO basically I can recieve ~1,536,000 bits per second, but they dont have to be useful buts (just the IP headers with no data, a shit-ton of ARP requests, One big packet that says "give us more money", 1.5 million bits worth of NACK's). I dont have to get whole packets from google.com, just 1.5 mil bits per second. No wait, maybe I dont get it.
Given these two issues alaone, the concept of 'network inequity' becomes one of (basically) 'Who's traffic gets degraded?' or more appropriately, 'Who's traffic do I drop first (out of full router queues) when my network gets congested?'
Well, if you degrade my traffic below what is on our SLA, then you owe me money, right?
Does that make more sense?
Maybe, but I am still confused. I cant buy a 2950 with 24 ports, then turn around and sell 24x100 mbps pipes, cause the device only has an internal capability of 800mbps. I could only sell 24x33 mbps pipes... or can I?
- ferg ps. http://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/catalog/24358-2.htm
Hmm, so does that mean you and Geoff published the book that enabled these guys to limit our packets? Nice one Ferg, thanks a bunch
;-)
-JP
-- "Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com> wrote: I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one, If you buy a T1 from AT&T, arent they supposed to provide 1.5 mbps to you? If google buys an OC48 or a few thousand Dedicated Lambdas, arent they supposed to get the bandwidth as well? Wouldnt adding/removing QoS to the packets violate the ToS? Are they still getting the B/W they paid for? Also, is the degradation of services happening on the Client side, the Provider side, or both? Easily Confused, -JP -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Dude VanWinkle (Apr 14)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Sean Donelan (Apr 16)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" and why it costs Kevin McAleavey (Apr 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Fergie (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Dude VanWinkle (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 16)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Dude VanWinkle (Apr 16)
- RE: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" StyleWar (Apr 16)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Dude VanWinkle (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Fergie (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Fergie (Apr 15)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Fergie (Apr 16)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Fergie (Apr 16)
- Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet" Dude VanWinkle (Apr 16)