nanog mailing list archives
Re: Napster and others...
From: smd () clock org
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:45:08 -0800
| What would be your suggestions on making Napster a more network | friendly app? 1. RFC 2001 compliance. Keep it TCP. 2. Although RFC 1349 is supposedly dead and the TOS octet in the RFC 791 scheme is dead too[*], it is at least good politics to set a low TOS value on the bulk transfer traffic. (If not on all traffic). Thus, routers configured to do TOS-based fancy queueing will DTRT and fewer people will accuse Napster of being a resource pig. 3. "If we aren't network friendly, please let us know what will make us more network friendly" is a great attitude to demonstrate. Hopefully this will be appreciated by actual operators (at least the ones who don't pay per-packet/per-byte charges). Sean. [*] RFC 2474/RFC 2475 but don't hold your breath -:) Who implements this could be a NANOG topic. -:) -:)
Current thread:
- Re: Napster and others..., (continued)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 07)
- "Bandwidth expands to fit the waste available" (Voidmstr's law) was: Re: Napster and others... Kai Schlichting (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Simon Lyall (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Michael Ridley (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... John Kristoff (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Shawn McMahon (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Michael Ridley (Mar 07)
- RE: Napster and others... Christian Kuhtz (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Jeremy Porter (Mar 07)
- Re: Napster and others... Peter Galbavy (Mar 08)
- Re: Napster and others... Erik E. Fair (Mar 09)
- Re: Napster and others... Scott McGrath (Mar 09)
- Re: Napster and others... Michael Shields (Mar 09)