nanog mailing list archives
Re: audio/video again
From: "Larry J. Plato" <ljp () ans net>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 04:57:25 +0000 (GMT)
I think this sounds fine, but I don't think you need an RFC to dictate it. This would be a competitive advantage for an application, methinks.This comment got me wondering, and I don't like where I wound up ... Would it be a competitive advantage? As far as responsible users go, it probably would. That brings up irresponsible users - users who don't care about their impact, and even worse hacker-type users who would deliberately bring down the net if they could ... how long before someone figures out how to make a server direct a Real Audio stream (or whatever) at someone else? The leverage for hackers could be enormous. -- Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, Pearly Gateway, Ballston Spa, NY
I pretty much agree with you, My first thought was this would be a disadvantage, since most users have no clue about the working of the net, but they know that application <bandwidth hog> 'runs faster' than application <net friendly>. It's the old grazing on the commons thing, Larry Plato Speaking for myself - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: audio/video again, (continued)
- Re: audio/video again Henk Smit (Aug 05)
- Re: audio/video again Michael Dillon (Aug 05)
- Re: audio/video again Dick St.Peters (Aug 06)
- Re: audio/video again Ehud Gavron (Aug 06)
- Re: audio/video again Dick St.Peters (Aug 06)
- Re: audio/video again Geert Jan de Groot (Aug 06)
- Re: audio/video again Michael Dillon (Aug 05)
- Re: audio/video again Dick St.Peters (Aug 07)
- Re: audio/video again Larry J. Plato (Aug 07)
- Re: audio/video again Dalvenjah FoxFire (Aug 07)
- Re: audio/video again Curtis Villamizar (Aug 08)
- Re: audio/video again alan (Aug 07)
- Re: audio/video again Dick St.Peters (Aug 08)