RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet

["Fred Reimer" <freimer () ctiusa com>]

Horrid?  Strong words.  What's horrid about allowing an ISP to
prefer that their BGP traffic has a higher priority than end-user
traffic, so that the whole net doesn't fail when pipes are
overprescribed, or there is a virus/worm on the net?  What's
horrid about allowing an end-user to decide which of its traffic
should be dropped first, if by definition some traffic HAS to be
dropped due to over-prescription?

If you think it's horrid, then I'd like some examples, because I
suspect that given certain specific scenarios you'd probably
agree with what should happen (as neutral as can possibly be
managed, and transparent).

Thanks,

Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman Technologies, Inc.
954-298-1697




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Musbach [mailto:johnmusbach () gmail com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:31 AM
> To: Fred Reimer; nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
>
> On Nov 27, 2007 7:18 AM, Fred Reimer <freimer () ctiusa com>
> wrote:
> > The only discriminatory behavior that should be
> > allowed is for QoS, to treat specific types or traffic in
> a
> > different manner to give preferential treatment to
> specific
> > classifications of traffic.
>
>
> I myself and I'm sure most others prefer net neutrality to
> the horrid
> alternative you're suggesting
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> John Musbach

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: