Horrid? Strong words. What's horrid about allowing an ISP to prefer that their BGP traffic has a higher priority than end-user traffic, so that the whole net doesn't fail when pipes are overprescribed, or there is a virus/worm on the net? What's horrid about allowing an end-user to decide which of its traffic should be dropped first, if by definition some traffic HAS to be dropped due to over-prescription? If you think it's horrid, then I'd like some examples, because I suspect that given certain specific scenarios you'd probably agree with what should happen (as neutral as can possibly be managed, and transparent). Thanks, Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS Senior Network Engineer Coleman Technologies, Inc. 954-298-1697
-----Original Message----- From: John Musbach [mailto:johnmusbach@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:31 AM To: Fred Reimer; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Nov 27, 2007 7:18 AM, Fred Reimer <freimer@ctiusa.com> wrote:
The only discriminatory behavior that should be allowed is for QoS, to treat specific types or traffic in a different manner to give preferential treatment to specific classifications of traffic.
I myself and I'm sure most others prefer net neutrality to the horrid alternative you're suggesting
-- Best Regards,
John Musbach