Re: BBN/GTEI

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>]

> From: Michael Dillon <michael () memra com>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Sure, but only the assymetry that results from BBN customers ASKING for more
> > than they OFFER.
>
> Or is it the asymmetry that results from Exodus customers OFFERING more
> than they ASK FOR?
>
> I don't think one of these views has any claim to precedence over the
> other. Just because long distance phone calling introduced the purely
> artificial concept that the initiator of the transaction pays for it does
> not mean we should analyze IP traffic in the same way.

In the past, on other topics, Michael often has had thoughtful
responses, but this time he has gone off the deep end (and is drowning).

Long distance carriers charge the initiator, even when the initiator
merely sits and listens to the content coming toward them, using little
or no bandwidth the other direction.  800 number services charge the
terminator, instead.  Both models are in vogue.  But they depend upon:
  1) the initiator and terminator being obvious,
  2) a setup time,
  3) total circuit time much greater then the setup time.

IP traffic has none of these characteristics.  Who is the "initiator"
for the FTP data PORT?  PASV?  What setup time?  What circuit time?

We are "packet" oriented, not "circuit" oriented.


> In the past we have
> considered the initiator of IP transactions to be irrelevant and had
> no-charge peering for networks that basically send a similar number of
> bytes to what they receive.
>
> So what do we do when that is no longer the case?
Those of us who have been around longer then most, remember that this
has _NEVER_ been the case.

My simple telnet to a host (circa '78...) delivered far more to the screen
than my typed commands, even with an old teletype or decwriter.

My FTPs from Simtel20 to Umich to MSU (circa '84-92) usually were
asymmetric, except when I was making a submission.

My POP{2,3} (circa '86, '88) was (and still is) asymmetric!

WSimpson () UMich edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32