Top posting reformatted.
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> >> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
> >> excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
> >> loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
> >> most anything. for
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 PDT, Joseph Jackson said:
> The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service then
> your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on forwarding. So while
> it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject to the same quality of
> service
>
> From: Joseph Jackson
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 -0700
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be f
Isn't the essence of consensus is to find common areas of agreement while
punting on the rest. There's plenty to focus on that IS in there, like
transparency and FCC control?
Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
>> excellent lip servic
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
Kevin Oberman wrote:
> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
> excelle
Kevin Oberman wrote:
That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless netwo
: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
>
> Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least
> in PA:
&
That link is silly, and completely opposite to what they said
-Original Message-
From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:00 AM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
Heh
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer.
>
> The consumer already has this option on many SOHO firewalls. No action by
> ISPs is required. But this is totally irrelevant to the idea of Net
> Neutrality.
>
>
Yes - but y
Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least
in PA:
http://www.pennpirg.org/action/google?id4=es
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 15:46 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:29:46 EDT, Joly MacFie said:
> > Nor ensure 'lawful' content
>
> Do you *really*
so you'd like to foist the problem off to the provider
> (cost/configuration) and benefit? Are you willing to pay some
> incrementally higher charge per month for that service? what about for
> security services? Do you think there are enough folks willing to pay
> for this sort of thing that it'd
> Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer.
The consumer already has this option on many SOHO firewalls. No action by ISPs
is required. But this is totally irrelevant to the idea of Net Neutrality.
> I view this exercise as paying for priority when the circuit is full -- like
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Kenny Sallee wrote:
> Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer. The last mile is
> 'usually' where congestion really hits. Why not build a portal for
> consumers to go in an choose what's important to them? I know some MPLS VPN
> providers do so
I don't see providers ever pushing it that far down the stream. Would you be
willing to pay more for your consumer connection to maintain those types of
features? Business connections, absolutely.
It's really about controlling bandwidth on the shared link, not your
individual home connection. So
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2?
> > Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same
> > performance?
>
> I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity,
> with
> Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2?
> Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same
> performance?
I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity, with
the action of intentionally QOS'ing Netflix over Youtube over the s
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
perform the proposed network management piece without
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
> glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
> perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
> which violates ever
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Zaid Ali wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
> glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
> perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
> which viol
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:29:46 EDT, Joly MacFie said:
> Nor ensure 'lawful' content
Do you *really* want to go there?
pgpbq3m3xycH4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Nor ensure 'lawful' content
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
> glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
> perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet
>
The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
which violates every users privacy.
Zaid
On 8/9/10 11:52 AM, "Joly MacFie
Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' -
something they deny in the call?
I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112
j
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone wrote:
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-fo
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Reese wrote:
> On 09 Aug 10 12:3
On 09 Aug 10 12:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Graham Beneke:
On 09/08/2010 07:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember
correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P
What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kin
WSJ has live updates on the google - verizon release
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/08/09/live-blogging-the-google-verizon-net-neutrality-announcement/
* Graham Beneke:
> On 09/08/2010 07:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember
>> correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P
>
> What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds
> of content distribution nodes in A
On 09/08/2010 07:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember
correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P
What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds of
content distribution nodes in Africa for over a year.
It
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Woow this is fantactic news. Oh wait. Didnt Akamai invent this years
ago?
I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember
correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On 09/08/2010 00:21, Mark Boolootian wrote:
Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
but it doesn't involve net neutrality:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
I'd assumed this would have been everyone's guess when the stories first
appeared.
nytimes==troll (when it comes to technology)
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
>> but it doesn't involve net neutrality:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
>
> Woow thi
Hi!
Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
but it doesn't involve net neutrality:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
Woow this is fantactic news. Oh wait. Didnt Akamai invent this years ago?
Bye,
Raymond.
32 matches
Mail list logo
