Re: A flaw in the Internet architecture?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
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