nanog mailing list archives
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
From: Joe Greco <jgreco () ns sol net>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:10:07 -0600 (CST)
Joe wrote:I am still failing to see why what you're talking about cannot be done with today's technology. And if it can be done with today's technology, and isn't being done with it, either that's a business opportunity for you, or it says something about the model.The later. It can be done today. So why is it not being offered? There must be other forces at work.
It is (/was). You had things like WebTV. Spectacularly unsuccessful as time went on. The problem is that the Internet is very powerful and very big. Offer people a basic box that does basic things, and one person will want to (also) pull up a PDF, another will (also) want to be able to install a more modern version of Flash to support the latest video capabilities being offered by $YOUTUBE_LIKE_SITE, a third will (also) want Java support in order to play some trite online game, etc. Offer people a basic Web-only Internet connection, and they'll want to know why their gaming console doesn't work, etc. Fundamentally, we have worked very hard for a very long time to create a sort of baseline level of what is expected as part of "Internet" connectivity. That's a basic IP connection. We've created standards on top of that to allow applications to interoperate. It is hard to dip down below that bar in terms of functionality. Anyone who tries is going to end up eating support costs. How do you offer a "cheaper" level of (let's say) Web-only Internet access, when the support costs will be higher? Where's the value? What's the business plan? Where's the profit in that? I really meant what I said: [I]f it can be done with today's technology, and isn't being done with it, either that's a business opportunity for you, or it says something about the model. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Current thread:
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic, (continued)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dan White (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic tvest (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Christopher Morrow (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic tvest (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Alexander Harrowell (Dec 30)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Nick Hilliard (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic TJ (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Jared Mauch (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Andy Davidson (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Provo (Dec 30)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Tomas L. Byrnes (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic David Conrad (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Michael Thomas (Dec 29)