[104021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Tue Apr 22 09:17:53 2008
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:17:17 +0100
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B002629D0D@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
> In the scenario above, I would expect the network operator to ban
> connections to their DSL address block. Instead, they would put
> some P2P clients in the rack with the topology guru middlebox
> and direct the transactions there. Or to peers/upstreams.
Don't know about the word "ban"; what we need is more like BGP than DRM.
Ideally, we want the clients to do sensible things because it works best,
not because they are being coerced. Further, once you start banning things
you get into all kinds of problems; not least that interests are no longer
aligned and trust is violated.
If DillTorrent is working well with a localpref metric of -1 (where 0 is the
free-running condition with neither local or distant preference) there
shouldn't be any traffic within the DSL pool anyway, without coercion.
There is obvious synergy with CDNs here.
Alex
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
