NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv?
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:44:13 -0400 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@listbox.com> 59D1B1B0-B6BC-11DF-B836-BA3EA77419C0: Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net> > Date: September 2, 2010 11:21:01 AM EDT > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: ip <ip@listbox.com>, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>, Mike Liebhold <mnl@well.com> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > >>> *From:* Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us <mailto:richard@shockey.us>> > ... >>> Mike you pointed out several things that have been obvious to those of us in >>> the Internet Engineering Community for some time. First packet discrimination >>> for various reasons, including congestion control, have been part of the >>> Internet Protocol suite since its inception. > > > Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. > > > Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from ietf.org. Differential handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. > > Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) > > The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability to use another service. > > The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. > > An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating the service. > > Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a service. > > Mike's note was clearly and strictly in terms of deployment of service non-neutrality mechanisms. That is, differential handling of protocols. > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----