[129735] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Sep 17 15:09:49 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C937192.2090603@brightok.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:08:11 -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 AM, 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
No, you have not de-neutralized their service. You have improved access =
asymmetrically.
You haven't de-neutralized their service until you REFUSE to create a =
private peer with Yahoo on the same terms as Google, even assuming we =
stick to your rather byzantine definition of neutrality.
There is a difference between neutrality and symmetry.
> 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
Again, this is not part of the neutrality debate, it is a separate =
operational concern. Network neutrality is not about making sure every =
user gets a fair shake from every protocol. It's about making sure that =
source/destination pairs are not subject to divergent priorities on =
shared links.
> 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
You're talking about different kinds of prioritization. Nobody is =
objecting to the idea of building out capacity and peering to places it =
makes sense.
What people are objecting to is the idea that their upstream provider =
could take a bribe from a content provider in order to reduce the =
quality of service to their customers trying to reach other content =
providers.
> 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
Not necessarily. It might just mean that the traffic they are sending is =
sufficiently lucrative that it is worth subsidizing. It might mean that =
the content provider believes they can gain an (anti-)competitive =
advantage by reducing the quality of the user experience for subscribers =
that are going to their competitors. You keep coming back to this =
anti-p2p-centric rant, but, that's got almost nothing to do with the =
issue everyone else is attempting to discuss.
>>> =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
Private peering is completely neutral IF it is available on identical =
terms and conditions to all players. It won't be symmetrical, but, it is =
neutral. Again, there is a difference between symmetry and neutrality.
The world is not symmetrical. There is no reason it cannot or should not =
be neutral.
In fact, there is good argument that being non-neutral is a violation of =
the Sherman anti-trust act.
> 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
Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality.
Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of =
terms and conditions, not identical service or traffic levels.
Neutrality is about letting the customer decide which content they want, =
not the ISP and expecting the ISP to be a fair broker
in connecting customers to content.
>>=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
Only so long as you are willing to add bandwidth to the other service(s) =
on the same terms and conditions as the one service. Yes.
The former is adding capacity to meet demand. The latter is not =
effectively adding bandwidth, it is reducing bandwidth for one to
reward the other.
In the former case, you are not penalizing other services, you are =
improving one. In the latter case, you are improving one
service at the expense of all others. It's the expense of all others =
part that people have a problem with.
> 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
The private peer doesn't do this by reducing the available bandwidth for =
the other services.
> 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
Fiction.
The way this would work in the real world (and what people are objecting =
to) is that the ISP would transition from
1) 90mb public with no prioritization
to
2) 90mb public with N mb prioritized via destination where N is the =
number of mbps that the destination
wanted to pay for.
More importantly, it's not the 90mb public circuits where this is the =
real concern. The real concern is
on the shared customer infrastructure side closer to the end-user where =
it's, say, 45mbps to the
DSLAM going form 45mbps public to 45mbps public with 20mbps prioritized =
for content-provider-A
while users trying to use content-provider-B get a degraded experience =
compared to A if their
neighbors are using A. (Hence my belief that this is already a Sherman =
Anti-Trust issue).
>> 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
No, it's more a matter of failing to understand the difference between =
neutrality and symmetry.
Neutrality means everyone faces the same odds and the same terms and =
conditions.
It means that amongst the other customers sharing the same ISP =
infrastructure we are
all treated fairly and consistently.
It does not mean symmetry. It means that you are not artificially =
penalizing access to
content providers that are not paying you in order to prioritize access =
to content
providers that are.
> 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
Apparently not an ISP that I would subscribe to.
Owen
