NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Richard Bennett on Comcast and Fairness (from IP)
I have a longer response that I wrote for the IP list but for brevity I'll simply note that the model of a "hog" holding up all traffic for a long time is wrong. We're not talking about slow networks or 200 car freight trains but lots of individual pack vying for slots. The real problem is with the metaphor of a fixed size buffer -- this is a Malthusian focus on zero-sum scarcity that creates no new value. In practice the carriers have given us only fraction of the potential capacity. Remember the "modem" scare which was 100% correct in noting that if we all started using modems the phone system would collapse. It didn't because we shifted to getting access to the inherent abundance available in the transport -- instead of 56kbps per copper pair we could get megabits and the rights of way now can give us gigabits at lower cost. What does it mean to connect to an "ISP" if we do our own networking and who defines fairness? Faux-ATT which, according to the NYT, is now threatening to judge whether our bits are moral enough, AKA, violate some copyright? As I said in the longer response -- a good engineer works within the constraints given -- a great engineer questions the constraints and gets fired because the constraints serve a policy need higher than mere science or reality. -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+bob19-0501=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+bob19-0501=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 18:31 To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Cc: lauren@vortex.com Subject: [ NNSquad ] Richard Bennett on Comcast and Fairness (from IP) ------- Forwarded Message From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:21:28 -0800 Subject: [IP] Interesting -- comment from author -- F.C.C. to Look at --------------- From: Richard Bennett [richard@bennett.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:23 PM To: David Farber Subject: Re: [IP] Re: F.C.C. to Look at Complaints Comcast Interferes With Net - New York Times As the author of the article in question, I'll gladly defend it. The fundamental point I was trying to make is simply that there's a huge hole in the architecture of the IETF protocol suite with respect to fairness. I'm a layer two protocol designer (Ethernet over UTP, WiFi 11n MSDU aggregation, and UWB DRP are in my portfolio), and in the course of my career have devoted an embarrassing amount of time to engineering fairness in network access. Most the younger generation takes it as given that if you understand TCP/IP you understand networking, but in fact most of the progress in network architectures over the last 30 years has been at layers 1 and 2. And with the TCP-centric mindset, they tend to believe that all problems of networking can be solved by the application of the right RFCs. But in fact we all connect to our ISP over a layer 2 network, and each of these has its own challenges and problems. The carriers are often criticized for not using packet drop to resolve fairness problems, but that's not really the scope of packet drop, which is actually a solution to Internet congestion, not to the lack of fairness that may (or may not) be the underlying cause of the congestion. We need a different solution to fairness at layer 3, especially on layer 2 networks like DOCSIS where packet drop closes the door after the horse has run off. The buffet analogy needs a little refinement. What the bandwidth hog does is block the line to the all-you-can-eat buffet so that nobody else can get any food. That's not a behavior that would be tolerated in a restaurant, and it shouldn't be tolerated in a residential network. Unfortunately, it wasn't the huge problem when DOCSIS was designed, so the 1.0 and 1.1 versions of the technology don't address it, certainly not as well as Full-Duplex Ethernet, 802.11e WiFi, and DSL do. Some may argue that the Internet doesn't need a fairness system as it's mostly a local problem, and I have some sympathy for that point of view. But in the final analysis, we all know that some of our bits are more important than others, and the network will work better if the layer 3 and layer 2 parts can communicate that sort of information between each other. I don't view this as a moral problem as much as an engineering problem. Moral philosophy is certainly a fascinating subject (as is video coding), but it's outside the scope of the current discussion. RB David Farber wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2@bobf.frankston.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 1:01 AM > To: David Farber; 'ip' > Subject: RE: [IP] Re: F.C.C. to Look at Complaints Comcast Interferes With Net - New York Times > > Moral court again ... > > Does this mean I can't share files with my neighbor because of the cost of peering with a remote provider? Will someone judge that backing up over the net is not an appropriate use of the network? Am I not allowed to backup to peers? > - ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------- End of Forwarded Message