nanog mailing list archives
RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan () atlasnetworks us>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:52:13 +0000
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their service by introducing destination based priority on congested links.
This totally screws with private peering and the variety of requirements, as well as special services (such as akamai nodes). Many of these cases aren't about saturation, but better connectivity between content provider and ISP. Adding money or QOS to the equation is just icing on the cake.
From a false assumption follows false conclusions.
Why do you feel it's true that net-neutrality treads on private (or even public) peering, or content delivery platforms? In my understanding, they are two separate topics: Net (non)-neutrality is literally about prioritizing different packets on the *same* wire based on whether the destination or source is from an ACL of IPs. IE this link is congested, Netflix sends me a check every month, send their packets before the ones from Hulu and Youtube. The act of sending traffic down a different link directly to a peers' network does not affect the neutrality of either party one iota - in fact, it works to solve the congested link problem (Look! Adding capacity fixed it!). The ethics of path distances, peering relationships and vector routing, while interesting, are out of scope in a discussion of neutrality. An argument which makes this a larger issue encompassing peering and vector routing is, in my opinion, either a straw man or a red herring (depending on how well it's presented) attempt to generate a second technoethical issue in order to defeat the first one. Nathan
Current thread:
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,, (continued)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Jack Bates (Sep 21)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Marshall Eubanks (Sep 21)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 16)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? George Bonser (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 16)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? George Bonser (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? William Herrin (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? sthaug (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? William Herrin (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 16)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Nathan Eisenberg (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 17)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Drew Weaver (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Michael Dillon (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? JC Dill (Sep 17)