age-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> ** Private ** wrote:
> > Call it "Bandwidth Throttling"
But at what point will that matter? If they start blocking then there is
a problem. But I only see this as being an issue when the pipe is at or
near capacity. At which point don't the providers have a responsibility
to put some types of traffic above others?
> -Original Message-
> From: J
Yeah, I love that thing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:24 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> ** Private *
** Private ** wrote:
> I'm not the network guy, but he doesn't always filter by port. He has
> the ability to filter by the application name, or so he tells me.
Maybe he filters by the evil bit.
Jochem
~|
Message: http://www.ho
** Private ** wrote:
> Total of 3,200 users. Of course, not all on at the same time.
> Simultaneous users would probably be around 500 employees/faculty and a
> couple hundred students.
>
> We have 20Mb "internet" bandwidth.
I occasionally watch HDTV broadcasts from Internet2 that are 20 Mbps a
Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
** Private ** wrote:
> Call it "Bandwidth Throttling". We do not block any content since we
> are a liberal arts school. However, we do throttle the bandwidth for
> content such as that for file shar
al Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 1:49 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
** Private ** wrote:
> Our sys admin said it would choke on that. Our packet shaping only
>
It doesn't look like enough. We might be able to use something like that for
ResNet. I think our stuff is segregated by building so put one at each
building and that might be possible.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> For how many people?
>
> A
** Private ** wrote:
> How does it deal with 10Gb throughput?
Funny you are asking, I was just talking to a Packeteer sales rep about that
last week.
It doesn't, the current highest capacity Packeteer is offering is 1 Gbps. It is
theoretically possibly to run 10 in parallel, but that either mak
** Private ** wrote:
> Call it "Bandwidth Throttling". We do not block any content since we
> are a liberal arts school. However, we do throttle the bandwidth for
> content such as that for file sharing applications.
And how do you know that it is file sharing? That requires knowledge layer 4
a
** Private ** wrote:
> I think I understand perfectly. Here is the key phrase: "if there are a lot
> of high-priority
> packets to be delivered." So if bandwidth is saturated, lower priority
> content gets put in the low-priority queue. Companies do this internally
> with Internet-based WANs all th
** Private ** wrote:
> Cisco routers can now do packet inspection and determine if the
> communication is VOIP, ports don't matter anymore.
Nothing can do packet inspection of IPSec or encrypted protocols.
Jochem
~|
Message: htt
** Private ** wrote:
> Our sys admin said it would choke on that. Our packet shaping only
> deals with our internet-routed data, not internal data. Our current
> bandwidth is 20Mb. Our current packetshaper will handle 100Mb. I don't
> know if there is a model that would support 10Gb.
For how
Thats true, that business model is dependant on good connectivity and no
dropping of
packets because of traffic overloads as happened 10 years ago on the
MAE-East thing you mentioned.
But I thought you said that competition was the answer to this type of
problem?
Why hand them a tool that has cle
Because they want to guarantee delivery of on-demand content like movies and
videos. That's where the money is, but the whole business model only works
if consumers have a good experience. If you pay $5 for a movie and you see
all sorts of skips, pauses, and so forth because all the kids in the
nei
>
> As long as they don't shut anyone out, I don't
> have a problem with it.
>
>
And you just trust them not to?
I wonder why they are spending SOOO much money on this if its just an
extreme condition which "only comes into play when available bandwidth is
saturated."
--
DRE
www.webmachineinc.c
tshaper will handle 100Mb. I don't
> know if there is a model that would support 10Gb.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:41 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happ
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:41 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
How does it deal with 10Gb throughput?
~|
Me
h, then the priority won't matter. If a provider out right
disallows the communication, then that is illegal.
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 8:41 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Those that said i
How does it deal with 10Gb throughput?
> -Original Message-
> From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 8:17 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
How do you deal with Skype?
With the port switching and all it is almost impossible to tell. New
torrent stuff is working the sam
28 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> That isn't what the bill is about.Calling 911 is irrelevant to the
> bill, and is not what people are arguing against.
>
> All the companies such as Microso
That isn't what the bill is about.Calling 911 is irrelevant to the
bill, and is not what people are arguing against.
All the companies such as Microsoft et al who are arrayed against the
bill are NOT uninformed at all.That alone should signal to you that
there is error in your understanding of the
And that's a big problem. A lot of folks don't get it. I understand Gel's
well-informed apprehension, although I do not share it. Personally, I would
hate to be unable to call 911 because all the kids in the neighboorhood are
on Gamespy or playing Halo2.
On 5/1/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6 11:18 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> Cisco routers can now do packet inspection and determine if the
> communication is VOIP, ports don't matter anymore.
>
> That technology is
Cisco routers can now do packet inspection and determine if the
communication is VOIP, ports don't matter anymore.
That technology is actually part and parcel of the bill and is part of
the reason why such a bill is now viable.
On 5/1/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you deal
would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
Call it "Bandwidth Throttling". We do not block any content since we
are a liberal arts school. However, we do throttle the bandwidth for
content such as that for file sharing applications.
We don't block you, but have fun
-Original Message-
From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:56 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
down by congress.
It's not about being full or not.
It's about allowing faster access to a certain r
ity
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> And revoking the "net neutrality" provision (requiring passing on
> packets without regard to origin or destination), and turning such
> decisions in the future over to
an control
your own network in an emergency.
-Original Message-
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:57 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted down
by congress.
I hope you say the same thing when we can
And revoking the "net neutrality" provision (requiring passing on
packets without regard to origin or destination), and turning such
decisions in the future over to the FTC (which, if you have been
paying any attention over the last 6 years, no longer even pretends to
not be in the hands of the lar
; Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:45 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> Competition? Then why do we need this law for any other reason than
I don't know, but I suspect regulation is responsible. The telcos and other
backbone providers, like cable cos., are still heavily regulated. So they
have to go begging to Congress for permission to enable traffic shaping and
QoS on their network gear. As long as they don't shut anyone out, I don't
Competition? Then why do we need this law for any other reason than to
stifle competition.
DRE
On 5/1/06, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But how level is it now? I'm pretty sure Amazon is already paying
> boatloads to get faster > access to their content.
>
> I believe Amazon in
> But how level is it now? I'm pretty sure Amazon is already paying boatloads
> to get faster > access to their content.
I believe Amazon in the US is paying a shit-ton of money for faster access...
In the UK it is an Imperial Shit-tonne
on the Continent, a metric shit-ton and so forth.
Hones
to it when they
can.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:34 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> This is akin to the USPS,
I think I understand perfectly. Here is the key phrase: "if there are a lot
of high-priority
packets to be delivered." So if bandwidth is saturated, lower priority
content gets put in the low-priority queue. Companies do this internally
with Internet-based WANs all the time. Does it make some thing
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> Nope, you guys are not understanding what they
This is akin to the USPS, DHL, and Fedex providing a service. A package gets
sent out from Woot to my house. But when they get into my town, the post office
decides that, unless woot pays extra, the package will get put in a "whenever
we feel like delivering it" bin, even though I paid for overn
nal Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:56 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it would not happen :Net Neutrality voted
> down by congress.
>
> It's not about being full or not.
> It's about allowin
Nope, you guys are not understanding what they are talking about.
Currently, the entire basis of the internet, and the basic
underpinning of TCPIP is that all packets are treated equally. They
are passed from here to there without regard to where it came from,
and with no preferential treatment fo
First of all, there is no equality on the Net. I can go to Verizon or Level3
and pay them gobs of money and get more bandwidth than the little guys. The
only change I perceive is the possibility that you would have to pay for a
ceiling as well as a floor, but even then, most ISPs already have a cei
Once you accept that there is an advantage, ANY advantage that this creates for
those Rich Corporations that can afford to pay, then you must also accept that
this disastrously alters the free and level internet where once you pay for
your bandwidth you have just as much service on a network fro
It's not about being full or not.
It's about allowing faster access to a certain resource on the net
before another.
You attempt to access MyBookstore.com. It takes you 1 minute to
download the content.
You attempt to access Amazon.com, who have paid for service, it takes
you 10 seconds to downloa
That would be clearly illegal under US case law.
On 5/1/06, Nick wrote:
>
> I think Gel contends, and correct me if I'm wrong, that these providers
> will
> out right block the content.
>
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~
What other route?
ALL the major carriers in the US are going to do this, your connection must
terminate or pass through their network at some point.
It REMOVES the level playing field of the internet totally. That's what I've
been trying to point out.That's what the articles point out, that's w
I think Gel contends, and correct me if I'm wrong, that these providers will
out right block the content.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:34 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Those that said it w
Now you are projecting that every major backbone provider will have
saturated bandwidth at the same time and that will prevent regular traffic
from getting through. I still contend that someone will come along to fill
the gap, because it represents an opportunity to make money by providing a
servic
What other route?
ALL the major carriers in the US are going to do this, your connection
must terminate or pass through their network at some point.
It REMOVES the level playing field of the internet totally. That's
what I've been trying to point out.That's what the articles point out,
that's wha
Of course there are advantages to paying more for bandwidth. But if you are
not serving video or phone/audio service, who cares about QoS? The situation
you are predicting only comes into play when available bandwidth is
saturated, and as I said, once that happens, the market will take care of
the
I hope you say the same thing when we can't access House of FUsion because
Michael can't pay additional fees to get the bandwidth, but still has a lot of
traffic coming to the site.
Your point of view is so naive.
---
But isn't the whole idea of the internet is that data packets will find t
I hope you say the same thing when we can't access House of FUsion
because Michael can't pay additional fees to get the bandwidth, but
still has a lot of traffic coming to the site.
Your point of view is so naive.
They don't have to block content outright. They can, however, cap the
available ban
OK, so I finally took the time to look into what all of this hubbub is
really about. As I understand it, Internet providers want to be able to use
QoS services on their own pipes to push some content ahead of other content.
All I can say is big freakin' deal. What Verizon, etc. are saying is that
t
53 matches
Mail list logo
