[27679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Napster and others...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Ridley)
Tue Mar 7 13:11:49 2000
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:03:06 -0800
From: Michael Ridley <michael@napster.com>
To: smd@clock.org
Cc: michael@napster.com, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000307100306.A1835@napster.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20000307174516Z947-3570+9@cesium.clock.org>; from smd@clock.org on Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 09:45:08AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 09:45:08AM -0800, smd@clock.org wrote:
> | What would be your suggestions on making Napster a more network
> | friendly app?
>
> 1. RFC 2001 compliance.
> Keep it TCP.
Agreed - I don't know of anything we would want to do that would break
that stuff.
> 2. Although RFC 1349 is supposedly dead and the TOS octet in the
> RFC 791 scheme is dead too[*], it is at least good politics to
> set a low TOS value on the bulk transfer traffic. (If not on all traffic).
> Thus, routers configured to do TOS-based fancy queueing will DTRT and
> fewer people will accuse Napster of being a resource pig.
I believe there was some discussion about doing that, actually, although
I don't know where it went (as I just do system admin stuff, not development
stuff). I'll have to inquire as I haven't heard anything about it recently.
Of course, the real impact would be pretty limited since I don't know that
most peoples' routers really look to that header for QoS. Nevertheless...
> 3. "If we aren't network friendly, please let us know what will make
> us more network friendly" is a great attitude to demonstrate. Hopefully
> this will be appreciated by actual operators (at least the ones who
> don't pay per-packet/per-byte charges).
Yeah, definately we aren't trying to make peoples' lives/budgets/latencies harder
than they need to be. The trick is in figuring out how much headache is
the nature of the beast, how much we can help alleviate, and what the
realistic compromise is.
Of course, I can only make suggestions to management, but I know that
everyone here is very aware of the real life issues for the NANOG type
community, and also very interested in doing what can reasonably be done.
> Sean.
>
> [*] RFC 2474/RFC 2475 but don't hold your breath -:)
> Who implements this could be a NANOG topic. -:) -:)
--
Michael Ridley <michael@napster.com>
