[129717] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Fri Sep 17 11:20:28 2010
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C937192.2090603@brightok.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:17:59 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 02AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than =
another.
>>=20
>> 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 their service by introducing destination based priority on =
congested links.
>=20
> This is what you want it to mean. If I create a private peer to =
google, I have de-neutralized their service(destination based priority, =
even though in both cases, it's the source of the packets we care about) =
by allowing dedicated bandwidth and lower latency to their cloud.
>=20
Practically, this is not the case. These days, most congestion tends to =
happen at the customer edge - the cable head-end or the DSL DSLAM, not =
the backbone or peering points.=20
Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on =
technical, not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, =
above all other interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both =
parties. More to the point, even the likes of Comcast won't shut down =
their peers to Yahoo because Google sends them a check.
> Also, let's not forget that the design of many p2p programs were =
specifically designed to ignore and bypass congestion controls... ie, =
screw other apps, I will take every bit of bandwidth I can get. This =
type of behavior causes p2p to have higher priority than other apps in a =
network that has no traffic prioritized.
>=20
> While I agree that traffic type prioritization would be preferred over =
destination based priorities, it often isn't feasible with hardware. =
Understanding the amount of traffic between your customers and a content =
provider helps you decide which content providers might be prioritized =
to give an overall service increase to your customer base.
>=20
> The fact that a content provider would even pay an ISP, is a high =
indicator that the content provider is sending a high load of traffic to =
the ISP, and bandwidth constraints are an issue with the service. Video =
and voice, in particular, should always try and have precedence over =
p2p, as they completely break and become unusable, where p2p will just =
be forced to move slower.
>=20
>>> =46rom a false assumption follows false conclusions.
>=20
> Not really. It's not a neutral world. Private peering is by no means =
neutral. The provider that does enough traffic with google to warrant a =
private peering will have better service levels than the smaller guy who =
has to take the public paths. You view net neutrality as customers =
within an ISP, while I view it as a provider within a network of =
providers.
>=20
It may not be neutral, but it's hardly discrinatory in the ways that =
I've seen many of the Non-net-neutrality schemes play out, which seems =
to be all about *deliberately* - either proactively or via actively =
deciding to not upgrade capacity - creating congestion in order to =
create a financial incentive for content providers to have their traffic =
prioritized.
And I do agree, a private peer is definitely one technical means by =
which this prioritization could happen, but that's not the practice =
today.=20
> The levels of service and pricing I can maintain as a rural ISP can't =
be compared to the metropolitan ISPs. A west coast ISP won't have the =
same level of service as an east coast ISP when dealing with =
geographical based content. We could take it to the international scale, =
where countries don't have equal service levels to content.
>=20
>>=20
>> Why do you feel it's true that net-neutrality treads on private (or =
even public) peering, or content delivery platforms? In my =
understanding, they are two separate topics: Net (non)-neutrality is =
literally about prioritizing different packets on the *same* wire based =
on whether the destination or source 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 Youtube. The act of sending =
traffic down a different link directly to a peers' network does not =
affect the neutrality of either party one iota - in fact, it works to =
solve the congested link problem (Look! Adding capacity fixed it!).
>>=20
> So you are saying, it's perfectly okay to improve one service over =
another by adding bandwidth directly to that service, but it's =
unacceptable to prioritize it's traffic on congested links (which =
effectively adds more bandwidth for that service). It's the same thing, =
using two different methods.
>=20
> If we consider all bandwidth available between the customer and =
content (and consider latency as well, as it has an effect on the =
traffic, especially during congestion), a private peer dedicates =
bandwidth to content the same as prioritizing it's traffic. If anything, =
the private peer provides even more bandwidth.
>=20
> ISP has 2xDS3 available for bandwidth total. Netflix traffic is =
20mb/s. Bandwidth is considered saturated.
>=20
> 1) 45mb public + 45 mb private =3D 90mb w/ 45mb prioritized traffic =
due to private peering
>=20
> 2) 90mb public =3D 90mb w/ 20mb prioritized traffic via destination =
prioritization (actual usage)
>=20
> It appears that the second is a better deal. The fact that netflix got =
better service levels was an ISP decision. By using prioritization on =
shared pipes, it actually gave customers more bandwidth than using =
separate pipes.
>=20
>> The ethics of path distances, peering relationships and vector =
routing, while interesting, are out of scope in a discussion of =
neutrality. An argument which makes this a larger issue encompassing =
peering and vector routing is, in my opinion, either a straw man or a =
red herring (depending on how well it's presented) attempt to generate a =
second technoethical issue in order to defeat the first one.
>>=20
>=20
> It's a matter of viewpoint. It's convenient to talk about =
net-neutrality when it's scoped, but not when we widen the scope. =
Customer A gets better service than Customer B because he want to a site =
that had prioritization. Never mind that while they fight over the =
saturated link, Customer C beat both of them because he was on a =
separate segment that wasn't saturated. All 3 paid the same amount of =
money. C > A > B, yet C doesn't fall into this net-neutrality =
discussion, and the provider, who wants to keep customers, has more C =
customers than A, and more A customers than B, so B is the most =
expendable.
>=20
> My viewpoint is that of an ISP, and as such, I think of net-neutrality =
at a level above some last mile that's saturated at some other ISP.
>=20
> Jack
>=20
>=20
