http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
-Hank
Is it remotely relevant what the founders anticipated? I doubt they
anticipated Amazon, Ebay and Google too.
On 9/13/10, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
>
> -Hank
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
William McCall, CCIE #25044
Only input I can give is on EOIP tunnels and MTU.
Scenario is we had 1 remote router running, Tunneled back to our network
using EOIP so that the remote network could use our ip space. Don't
remember how I figured it out, But I was using the MTU of 1458 (On the EOIP
interface). Everything was g
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
against it when it comes to net access.
Sent from my iPhone 4.
On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
wrote:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
> happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
so
> many are against it when it comes to net access.
Because of net neutrality ?
>
> Sent
Why not, we (collectively) already pay for peering either directly or
indirectly through restrictive peering policies.
Jeff
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Julien Gormotte wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
> wrote:
>> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority acc
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:28:09AM -0400, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
> this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
> against it when it comes to net access.
>
Because I pay my ISP for inter
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:40:10PM +, Julien Gormotte wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
> wrote:
> > Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
> > happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
> so
> > many are agai
Brian J.
>-Original Message-
>From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 9:30 PM
>To: Owen DeLong; Patrick W. Gilmore
>Cc: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
>
>On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong
>wrote:
>> Really? So, sin
On Sep 13, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:40:10PM +, Julien Gormotte wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
>> wrote:
>>> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
>>> happen this model is used for many other o
On 9/13/2010 9:28 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
> happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure
> why so many are against it when it comes to net access.
>
Who is paying for access to the Internet?
I thought
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I pay for access at home,
my employer pays for access here at work, and Google, Apple, etc. pay for
access (unless they've moved into the DFZ, which only happens when it's
beneficial for all players that you're there). Why should we pay extra
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> [cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
> now please?]
Of course Hitler was the first to propose pay-to-play internet
traffic. :)
Consumers are more in need of regulatory protection than b
>-Original Message-
>From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:32 AM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
>
>In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe
Provo
>wro
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 EDT, Rodrick Brown said:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
> this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
> against it when it comes to net access.
Sure - I would have to pay $$/mo if I wanted
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:44:40AM -0500, Brian Johnson
wrote:
> OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
> I'm against more regulation and for competition.
Competition would be wonderful, but is simply not practical in many
cases. Most people
On 9/13/2010 9:15 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I pay for access at home,
my employer pays for access here at work, and Google, Apple, etc. pay for
access (unless they've moved into the DFZ, which only happens when it's
beneficial for all players
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
No, the founders anticipated source-declared priorities for unpaid
military and government traffic. Commercial Internet really wasn't on
their radar.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at
Not sure if this the the right venue for this, but would anyone happen to know
if there is any changes or "enhancements" in the Windows 2008 64 Bit R2 TCP/IP
stack or in TOE that would cause multicast or microsecond bursts of UDP to be
dropped between the physical layer (NIC) and OS. I am runnin
> Competition would be wonderful, but is simply not practical in many
> cases. Most people and companies don't want to hear this, but from
> a consumer perspective the Internet is a utility, and very closely
> resembles water/sewer/electric/gas service. That is, having 20
> people run fiber past
On 09/13/2010 06:28 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen
this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are
against it when it comes to net access.
Sent from my iPhone 4.
On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Ha
>-Original Message-
>From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:05 AM
>To: Hank Nussbacher
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
>On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rodrick Brown
>wrot
On 13.09.2010 18:52 Tim Franklin wrote
> Exactly like electricity and gas - I only have one set of wires /
> pipes to my house, but there's a plethora of companies I can choose
> to buy energy services from.
>
Sounds like paradise to me.
Just my 0.02€,
Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper / nIPper consu
The article seems to jump around between 1973 and 1998 pretty
easily. I guess for some "10 years ago" will always be "the early
internet".
That said, the author says AT&T hinges on the use of the word
'pricing' in RFC2475 which is dated December 1998, founders?
Besides, "pricing" is a term of ar
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>>The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
>>service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
>>provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
>>location in each state in whi
Oh and one more thing...
In the "early internet", let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
wasn't price etc, it was:
1. ARPA/ONR (and later NSF) Research sites and actual network research
2. Faculty with funding from 1 at major university research sites
3. Faculty with funding from
Most of us tend to do only default settings,it would better if we dig better
into our settings and apply stricter rules to enhance security
Sent from my HTC HD2 on Android
On 13 Sep 2010 13:55, "Brian Johnson" wrote:
>
>
> Brian J.
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:15:02AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote:
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I pay for access
> at home, my employer pays for access here at work, and Google, Apple,
> etc. pay for access (unless they've moved into the DFZ, which only
> happens when it's be
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Barry Shein wrote:
Oh and one more thing...
In the "early internet", let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
wasn't price etc, it was:
1. ARPA/ONR (and later NSF) Research sites and actual network research
2. Faculty with funding from 1 at major university research
>> In the "early internet", let's call that prior to 1990, the hierarchy
>> wasn't price etc, it was:
> During the pre-1990's, I doubt any of the Internet "founders" were thinking
> of how to pay for networks other than asking for more grant money. ARPA and
> friends paid the bills, and asked for
30 matches
Mail list logo
