NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Internet User's Bill of Rights [was: Google Hijacked -- Major ISP to Intercept and Modify Web Pages
Hmmm, I think you are playing coy here. If we are talking TCP, it already handles ordering. So, my interpretation of no reordering means do not mess up the sequence that is embedded in the TCP header such that my machine will not be able to piece the packets back together. This also means to me that ISPs do not modify the sequence number so that ISPs can insert their own packets with the correct sequencing such that the client machine can't identify that the original host stream has been compromised. I can't believe that ISPs have the audacity to not see what they are doing as compromising the integrity of the original stream in a world where authenticity is critical. By the way, I can tell you that my company has a problem with network neutrality. Where did you get your information that you can make that broad generalization? Dan On Dec 12, 2007 11:27 AM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, John Bartas wrote: > > "To me it's even simpler: What am I paying my ISP to do?" > > > > I'd like to propose an answer, in two parts: > > > > 1) I'm paying my ISP to move a stream of packets between my site and other > > internet sites. They are not to edit, drop, reorder, examine, modify or add > > to the packets other than the minimal RFC-compliant header changes required > > for forwarding the packets. > > 2) They must handle all packets in FIFO order except by mutual pre-argeement. > > For example, If I consent to delaying my bit-torrent traffic to improve > > timing of my RTP streams, then they may do so; but not without my prior > > informed consent. > > You may have confused a packet switching network and a TDM private line. > > TDM private lines have strict FIFO bit handling, they are also much more > expensive. Packet switching networks are cheaper, but also don't make > the same promises about packet ordering, variable bandwidth, packet loss, > or even data corruption, etc. > > If you want to pay a lot more, would all these issues disappear? On the > other hand, is there a reason why they are lower cost? There doesn't > seem to be much concern about "network neutrality" for expensive network > connections usually bought by commercial companies. > > You might be interested in the paper "Characterizing Residential Broadband > Networks": > http://www.imconf.net/imc-2007/papers/imc137.pdf >