[120622] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Dec 29 12:08:33 2009
To: "Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)" <marcus.sachs@verizon.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:43:25 EST."
<81D582C724CA1046A279A7EE1299638B02AC1A9A@FHDP1LUMXCV24.us.one.verizon.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:07:24 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1262106444_4680P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:43:25 EST, "Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)" said:
> 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.
The gene pool needed some chlorine anyhow, but this is a creative approach. :)
But seriously - would this be significantly different than the model that
many ISPs already use, where "consumer" connections get port 25 blocked, no
servers allowed, etc, and "business grade" skip those restrictions? Or are
you saying that ISPs should go *further* in blocking stuff, and use the
resulting support savings to lower the consumer grade price point?
Only big stumbling block is what percent of customers will be willing to
skip file-sharing networks and online games that use oddball ports? Any
ideas there?
--==_Exmh_1262106444_4680P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLOjdMcC3lWbTT17ARAnJJAJ0QX6apj7ld/WgW4aa25/8xL6j5TACg2TvZ
pnXhln4DV6/UvPtai7HEaOg=
=U8DZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1262106444_4680P--
