[112515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DPI or Flow Management
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Francois Menard)
Sun Mar 1 22:29:59 2009
From: Francois Menard <francois@menards.ca>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: <49AB4115.9060303@brightok.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:29:49 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The issue is use of dpi to eliminate congestion stemming from p2p's =20
natural unfairness behind the unbundling interface.
F.
Le 09-03-01 =C3=A0 21:14, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> a =C3=A9crit =
:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> In short, the entire DPI debate is starting to go on similar lines,
>> and flogging similar horses, as the gun control debate
>> Yes, dpi has great, useful applications (ddos mitigation and other
>> security, for example). And it has bad / harmful applications
>> (dictatorships doing dpi to catch political dissent).
>> That says a lot more about inappropriate / appropriate use of dpi
>> rather than dpi itself.
>> Nothing at all in DPI that makes it wrong, deeply evil etc.
>
> Which is why the political debates over it bother me. Declaring dpi =20=
> as evil and regulating it could very well limit security of the =20
> future; not to mention the fact that DPI tends to be extremely vague =20=
> in definition dependent upon its implementation.
>
> Jack
>
