[120649] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Wed Dec 30 09:06:06 2009
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:05:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2bphhju9e.wl%randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart4411603.GsTdSuCrYz
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 22:22:05 Randy Bush wrote:
> > None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or
> > merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two
> > from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
> > functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the
> > prospect of getting anything different is effectively eliminated.
>
> this is the telco solution to the nasty disruptive technologies spawned
> by the internet
>
> randy
It surely is. Also, when was the last time you had a customer ring up and a=
sk=20
for a product "like the Internet but with bits missing"? Nobody wants it, a=
nd=20
the evidence of this is that nobody asks for it, and further that nobody's=
=20
started an ISP that provides it, although people have been talking about it=
=20
for years.
The support for "the Internet but not quite" is usually from either:
1) Telcos who secretly wish the Internet would go away
2) Security/morals bureaucrats (who secretly wish it would go away)
3) Engineers noodling on the idea, who don't have a business model for it
Note that this list doesn't include "users" or "customers" or anyone willin=
g=20
to offer "money" for it.
Also, I don't think it's at all clear that Internet-minus service would be=
=20
cheaper to provide. Basically, if you have an IP network you can provide al=
l=20
the applications over it by default. Therefore, if you want to get rid of=20
some, you've got to make an effort, which implies cost. There is no such th=
ing=20
as a Web DSL modem or a Web router.
In terms of traffic, as over 50% of the total is WWW these days, and a siza=
ble=20
chunk of the rest is Web-video streaming, once you've chucked in the e-mail=
,=20
it's far from clear that you'd save significant amounts of bandwidth.=20
Obviously, if you were intending to offer proper Internet service as an ext=
ra-
cost option, you wouldn't have two lots of access lines, backhaul, transit =
=2D=20
you'd filter more ports for some subset of your addressing scheme, or put t=
he=20
less-than-Internet customers on a different layer 2 vlan. So you'd still ne=
ed=20
the extra bandwidth for the other customers.
Where is the saving? Fewer support calls due to...what exactly? aren't the=
=20
biggest malware vectors now web-based drive by download, sql injection and =
the=20
like? Of course, there'll be a fair few wanting to know why slingbox, skype=
,=20
IM protocol of choice, work vpns etc don't work.
The exercise is pointless.
--nextPart4411603.GsTdSuCrYz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBLO14Z0c69vkueJcQRAnQeAJkBlDxQVKroYcEQfCd/QsQfrEmWdQCgna5e
TPbCcXECSYr+5F0ZPgJJ82o=
=LfPM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart4411603.GsTdSuCrYz--
