nanog mailing list archives
Re: BBN/GTEI
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 03:07:05 GMT
I'm a bit tired of the flood we are having, on an old topic we put to rest years ago. Remember the "economists" showing up on the IETF list? Here is the answer from the previous go 'round, tailored to the recent imbroglio. If GTE/BBN is concerned about asymmetry in bytes or packets, then Exodus should oblige them! (1) Once a day, gather a list of all BBN IP destinations. (2) Route all these destinations thru a special socks proxy, or modify the TCP accept() to check the destination. (3) Cut the MSS to the minimum 48 bytes. (4) Disable slow start threshhold advancement, forcing an Ack per data packet. (5) Add a _red_ _blinking_ _text_ warning to all main hosted pages (for everyone), stating clearly that GTE/BBN is experiencing slow service and congestion, that faster service can be had thru another provider, and list those providers that are recommended. You might even be able to get folks to pay you to add them to the list. That will take care of the asymmetry problem, both technically and financially! Those of you who have been around longer than most :-) will remember that I was (and still am) an advocate of the dial-up subscriber fees being subsidized by the content providers, just as we had in the old days when the universities provided both the destination servers (content) and the dial-up modem pools. Dialing in was free. Accessing the servers was not free. The reason for the network was rarely for the subscribers to talk to each other. They already need authentication to access the "content", even their own POP3 accounts. We appear to be coming back to that older model, with "free" dial-up subsidized by advertising at the providers. But I am strongly opposed to the big "middle" carriers charging both ends. It would never happen in a truly competitive market. It is clear that mergers such as GTE/BBN have passed the monopoly/oligopoly barrier. WSimpson () UMich edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Current thread:
- Re: BBN/GTEI, (continued)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Brian Pape (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI M. David Leonard (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Dave Rand (Aug 21)
- BBN/GTEI Richard Irving (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Patrick Greenwell (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Austin Schutz (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI William Allen Simpson (Aug 21)
- RE: BBN/GTEI Jamie Scheinblum (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Richard Irving (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Bruce Hahne (Aug 21)
- Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Mike Leber (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Michael Dillon (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Mike Leber (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) John A. Tamplin (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Adrian Chadd (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Mike Leber (Aug 22)
- Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Adrian Chadd (Aug 22)
- Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: BBN/GTEI) Mike Leber (Aug 22)