Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: A flaw in the Internet architecture?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:27:03 -0700
________________________________________ From: Tony Lauck [tlauck () madriver com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:20 PM To: Richard Bennett Cc: David Farber Subject: Re: [IP] A flaw in the Internet architecture? Yes, the pipes may be dumb, but the valves better have some smarts behind them! I don't want the carriers caching my data any more than I want the road operators warehousing my goods. I'd just as soon pay a little extra to keep the camel's nose out of my tent. I want to avoid the camel (e.g. Phorm). Tony Lauck www.aglauck.com Richard Bennett wrote:
Good point about the inevitability of flow rate disparity. Perhaps in the future I'll simply say that the notion of dumb pipes is the fundamental flaw in NN. But Tony, if ISPs sell caching services on a non-discriminatory basis, what's the harm? RB Tony Lauck wrote:I'm not sure what particular aspect of the Jacobson algorithm Richard Bennett considers a flaw. Normally TCP flow rates decrease with increasing round trip time -- this is a natural stabilizing function of any window based end to end flow control mechanism. By locating its servers closer to its end users a CDN operator reduces round trip time which benefits its users, but it also reduces transmission costs which indirectly benefits network operators and other network users. I fail to see any exploitation here. In any event, research dating at least as far back as the early 1980's shows that fair allocation of network resources can not be achieved at the ends of a network. Network operators must be responsible for allocating their own resources equitably among their customers; practical mechanisms exist to achieve this, some of which I have described in previous posts to this list. In my opinion, a common carrier should not be allowed into any other related business, period. (This works both ways: Google should not be allowed to become a carrier.) Limited space monopolies may be unavoidable in certain corners of an otherwise free market, but companies should not be allowed to use integration or contracts to leverage a monopoly. I believe the railroads made this clear during the 19th century. In my opinion these problems are structural and can not be solved by ever more complex regulations. What is needed are simple structural laws that make it impossible for unavoidable monopolies to spread outside of their niche. (Maybe nothing in our advanced civilization can be simple any longer. If so, then we are doomed, and justly so.) Tony Lauck www.aglauck.com
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- A flaw in the Internet architecture? David Farber (Jul 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- A flaw in the Internet architecture? David Farber (Jul 10)
- Re: A flaw in the Internet architecture? David Farber (Jul 11)
- A flaw in the Internet architecture? David Farber (Jul 11)
- A flaw in the Internet architecture? David Farber (Jul 11)