nanog mailing list archives
RE: ip-precedence for management traffic
From: "Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)" <marcus.sachs () verizon com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:43:25 -0500
Joe wrote:
Getting back to the OP's message, I keep having these visions of the castrated "Internet" access some hotels provide. You know the ones. The ones where everything goes through a Web proxy and you're forced to have IE6 as a browser. For some people, who just want to log on to Yahoo or Hotmail or whatever to check their e-mail, that's fine. However, some of us might want to be able to VNC somewhere, or do VoIP, or run a VPN connection... these are all well-known Internet capabilities, and yet some providers of so-called "Internet" access at hotels haven't allowed for them. Do we really want to spread that sort of model to the rest of the Internet? All it really encourages is for more and more things to be ported to HTTP, including, amusingly, management of devices... at which point we have not really solved the problem but we have succeeded at doing damage to the potential of the Internet.
Yes, taking away the mechanisms will result in a "castrated" Internet experience for the clueful ones which is why I don't think this can be a one-size-fits-all model like the hotels try to do. Imagine a residential ISP that offers castration at a lower price point than what is currently charged for monthly "raw" access. I think that many consumers would opt for that choice, while those who need access to everything would continue to pay the same rate. The price drop would be the incentive to get castrated, and what you give up would be access to things you likely don't use anyway. This castration process would be a big help to spam-blocking, evilware-blocking, ddos-blocking, etc. in addition to mitigating attacks against the mechanisms from hijacked residential computers. Marc
Current thread:
- ip-precedence for management traffic Luca Tosolini (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dobbins, Roland (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Mehmet Akcin (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Julio Arruda (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Steven Bellovin (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Christopher Morrow (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dan White (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic tvest (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Christopher Morrow (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic tvest (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Mehmet Akcin (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Alexander Harrowell (Dec 30)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dobbins, Roland (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)