Home page logo

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

Equal capacity for equal pay!
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:13:49 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
Date: August 31, 2008 11:36:01 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, lroberts () anagran com
Subject: Equal capacity for equal pay!

That's it, exactly! "Equal capacity for equal pay." Dispense with the concept of flow, it really is an upper layer concept that has no place within the network itself.

I would add one proviso: don't limit utilization unnecessarily. Apply the rule only when necessary, i.e. when there is competition between users. If packets from a single user are competing with other packets from that user, leave any prioritization to the user's gateway or network. (Or to the parent who can disconnect the kid's computer, the ultimate embodiment of equal capacity for equal pay.)

With aggregation this way, it then becomes possible to scale the congestion management hierarchically. Backbones need to know the utilization of ISPs and their payments. ISPs need to know the utilization of customers and their payments. LAN managers need to know the utilization of individuals or departments, etc.

Tony Lauck

David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *"Dr. Lawrence Roberts" <lroberts () anagran com <mailto:lroberts () anagran com >>
*Date: *August 30, 2008 1:16:14 AM EDT
*To: *David Farber <dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>>, Larry Roberts <lroberts () anagran com <mailto:lroberts () anagran com>>, dan () lynch com <mailto:dan () lynch com> *Subject: **Re: Fwd: [IP] do read !!! Comcast confirms 250GB cap effective October 1* Unfortunately, the problem is even worse for Japan and S. Korea. P2P users are more common, the countries are small so most downloads or uploads go international, and their High speed symmetric BB links suffer far worse than our un-symmetric lower speed BB connections. So they have major economic problems. They have tried DPI even before us but it cannot find all the encrypted flows now so the remaining 30% or the P2P users still can operate freely. The remaining P2P users then spawn more flows and take up the same 80-90% of the pooled capacity. The result is the average user get very poor service. However going to a GB cap or a charge per GB is really bad as we know. But put this down to flailing for a solution in the face of an extremely bad situation. The Internet cannot stand up to this as more and more applications discover the ease of getting more capacity by using more flows. I continue to believe that equal capacity for equal pay instead of equal capacity per flow is what we need to move to, since then congestion will affect us all fairly (as it used to). But how does one convince the world?

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread: