If by french, you actually are wondering if the time could be afforded to translate all of the filing to french, and file in both languages, the answer is unfortunately no. However, I most certainly assist with any requested translation. My take on this is that there is no difference in a peering router ignoring DSCP bits, and queuing all of the traffic in the same lane, such as to disregard the intended prioritization between the peering parties. DPI gear instead of ignoring DSCP bits, compute DSCP bits from the content of the packer (so-called application headers). I agree with various party submissions that the 5-layer Internet model does not provide for such a concept of headers, which DPI and ILECs and Incumbent Cable Operators, call application headers. I believe that anything traffic management, which purports to place its hook on application headers, is by definition, violating network neutrality. However, traffic management in the form of 'pacing packets' based on their inter-arrival behavior, multiplicity of sources and multiplicity of destinations, remains legit in my humble opinion. Just like ignoring DSCP bits at the peering interface is legit at this time. Its like the post office getting envolopes by the truckload, then opening each envelope, read the content, to decide when to send the opened letter for delivery, either by foot or car, claiming that such a decision process will prevent envelopes from flooding the post office, coming into the post office for delivery in the last mile. On the other hand, traffic management such as flow management, deal with stuff differently by ensuring that the envelopes do not get to the post office too fast, thus permitting the letters be dispatched always by car, except those envelopes which are arriving to the post office, exhibiting behaviour of P2P, which are then sent for delivery by foot. In this latter case, the envelopes are never opened. F. -- François D. Ménard francois@menards.ca On 1-Mar-09, at 11:32 AM, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
Francois:
Should your email have also included a French interpretation as well?
Sincerely,
Lorell Hathcock ----------------------------------------------------- Francois :
Votre email devrait-il avoir également inclus une interprétation française aussi bien ?
Sincèrement,
Lorell Hathcock
-----Original Message----- From: Francois Menard [mailto:francois@menards.ca] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:51 PM To: nanog list Subject: DPI or Flow Management
The Coalition of Internet Service Providers has filed a substantial contribution at the CRTC stating:
1) The CRTC should forbid DPI, as it cannot be proven to be 98.5% effective at trapping P2P, such as to guarantee congestion relief
2) The CRTC should allow for other forms of traffic management by ISPs, such as Flow Management
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029835.zip
This is part of the public record at the following address:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8646/c12_200815400.htm
The world will see Canada taking head-on the issue of addressing the legitimacy of DEEP PACKET INSPECTION as a mean of properly managing an incumbent's network behind the unbundling/peering interface.
NANOG cannot pretend that this debate does not take place and remain silent on this.
Best regards,
F. -- François D. Ménard francois@menards.ca