[80258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Hollis)
Wed Apr 27 16:23:25 2005
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <17007.55471.764907.895689@roam.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> to source is still the big gap. imiho, from the ops perspective,
> only sally's ecn has made any useful approach. sadly, we may be
> able to judge the actual demand for e2e qos by ecn's very slow
> deployment. i think this is unfortunate, as ecn is pretty cool.
The low demand is partially due to IWF[0] who unwittingly block it. Many
OSes deploy with ecn support but default it off due to the IWF problem.
And there are so many IWF that applying enough cluebats to clear the path
for ECN is going to take enormous effort.
We could demonstrate how cool ECN is, if there werent so many IWF making
this impossible. Entities who try to deploy ECN are deluged with "hey wtf
I cant reach site XYZ anymore, your shit is broken, fix it you *******!"
I have no idea if microsoft supports ECN yet, but if they dont then I
suspect that a sufficiently embarassing benchmark would prod them into
adding it.
I wonder how many network operators on nanog block ECN. If you do, why?
-Dan
[0]Idiots With Firewalls. See http://urchin.earth.li/cgi-bin/ecn.pl
