[129709] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Fri Sep 17 05:52:48 2010
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:52:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4C928391.4050701@brightok.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than anot=
her.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. =
True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize thei=
r service by introducing destination based priority on congested links.
> This totally screws with private peering and the variety of requirements,=
as well
> as special services (such as akamai nodes). Many of these cases aren't ab=
out
> saturation, but better connectivity between content provider and ISP. Add=
ing
> money or QOS to the equation is just icing on the cake.
>From a false assumption follows false conclusions. =20
Why do you feel it's true that net-neutrality treads on private (or even pu=
blic) peering, or content delivery platforms? In my understanding, they ar=
e two separate topics: Net (non)-neutrality is literally about prioritizing=
different packets on the *same* wire based on whether the destination or s=
ource is from an ACL of IPs. IE this link is congested, Netflix sends me a=
check every month, send their packets before the ones from Hulu and Youtub=
e. The act of sending traffic down a different link directly to a peers' n=
etwork does not affect the neutrality of either party one iota - in fact, i=
t works to solve the congested link problem (Look! Adding capacity fixed i=
t!).
The ethics of path distances, peering relationships and vector routing, whi=
le interesting, are out of scope in a discussion of neutrality. An argumen=
t which makes this a larger issue encompassing peering and vector routing i=
s, in my opinion, either a straw man or a red herring (depending on how wel=
l it's presented) attempt to generate a second technoethical issue in order=
to defeat the first one.
Nathan
