Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

michael.dillon () bt com wrote:
> NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out
> to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of
> an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static
> setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge
> of the ISP's economic realities. I'd like to see a P2P protocol that
> sets up paths dynamically, but allows for inputs as varied as those
> old NNTP setups. There was also a time when LAN's had some form of
> economic reality configured in, i.e. some users were only allowed
> to log into the LAN during certain time periods on certain days.
> Is there any ISP that wouldn't want some way to signal P2P clients
> how to use spare bandwidth without ruining the network for other
> paying customers?

I think it's safe to assume that isps are steering p2p traffic for the 
purposes of adjusting their ratios on peering and transit links...

while it lacks the intentionality of playing with the usenet 
spam/warez/porn firehose a little TE to shift it from one exit to 
another when you have lots of choices is presumably a useful knob to have.

Layer violations to tell applications that they should care about some 
peers in their overlay network vs others seems like something with a lot 
of potential uninteded consequences.

> --Michael Dillon
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG () nanog org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog


_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog