inline... On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:15 -0700, George Bonser wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that paid prioritization only really has an impact once there is congestion. If your buffers are empty, then there is no real benefit to priority because everything is still being sent as it comes in. If you have paid prioritization, there is a financial incentive to have congestion in order to collect "toll" on the expressway. So if I have a network that is not congested, nobody is going to pay me to ride on a special lane.
That's a serious problem that came up verbatim in an overheard (#1) conversation yesterday. The bean-counters (who must, unfortunately, remain nameless) coined the phrase "fill your buffers and fill your boots". I was left with the distinct unsavoury impression that they were drawing up a (contingency) plan for that exact eventuality.
I believe a network should be able to sell priotitization at the edge, but not in the core. I have no problem with Y!, for example, paying a network to be prioritized ahead of bit torrent on the segment to the end user but I do have a problem with networks selling prioritized access through the core as that only gives an incentive to congest the network to create revenue.
+1, because anything other than that Paid-Edge-Prio(#2), to me, smells of theft, fraud, and frankly, B-S. IANAL Gord (#1) on a comletely unrelated topic, twisted pairs could possibly great mike leads, don't you think? <cough> (#2) you heard it here first. Like wise, Paid-Core-Prio. Hey, I could patent-troll this stuff :) -- $ cowsay paid-prio ( rip-off ) -------- o ^__^ o (oo)\_______ (__)\ )\/\ \ ||----w | \_____ || ||