Q: As part of this, can you tell me why your router is prohibiting
packets being sent to our interface?
A: The reason you cannot hit your interface is it is blocked for
security reasons.
[...]
What the heck is going on lately? Have we returned to the time where
we've started trying
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs
we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of
To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second
that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel
not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this
be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be
-prioritizing the basic service.
Cheers,
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36
To: Schliesser, Benson
Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG
Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet
Hello;
My experience is that customers won't put a lot
Thinking of services in terms of /etc/services will get you nowhere
with this. It's like using the term best effort to a lawyer.
It's all about context.
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 11
What is Internet? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it
the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric
closure of the relationship can be reached by an IP packet from. It
should be clear that the nature and extent of this network depends
very much on
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schliesser, Benson) writes:
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater
benefit:
the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes?
If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by
their respective (different
Michael Dillon wrote:
P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic
exchange was paid for and there was no settlement
free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid
full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater
I would think in NANOG that one would know the simple fact that 'The
Complete
Internet' is complete and utter fiction, and does not exist. What
does exist
is a complex, dynamic, even stochastic set of relationships between
autonomous networks, who can pick and choose their relationships
10 matches
Mail list logo
