I'm a bit tired of the flood we are having, on an old topic we put to rest years ago. Remember the "economists" showing up on the IETF list? Here is the answer from the previous go 'round, tailored to the recent imbroglio. If GTE/BBN is concerned about asymmetry in bytes or packets, then Exodus should oblige them! (1) Once a day, gather a list of all BBN IP destinations. (2) Route all these destinations thru a special socks proxy, or modify the TCP accept() to check the destination. (3) Cut the MSS to the minimum 48 bytes. (4) Disable slow start threshhold advancement, forcing an Ack per data packet. (5) Add a _red_ _blinking_ _text_ warning to all main hosted pages (for everyone), stating clearly that GTE/BBN is experiencing slow service and congestion, that faster service can be had thru another provider, and list those providers that are recommended. You might even be able to get folks to pay you to add them to the list. That will take care of the asymmetry problem, both technically and financially! Those of you who have been around longer than most :-) will remember that I was (and still am) an advocate of the dial-up subscriber fees being subsidized by the content providers, just as we had in the old days when the universities provided both the destination servers (content) and the dial-up modem pools. Dialing in was free. Accessing the servers was not free. The reason for the network was rarely for the subscribers to talk to each other. They already need authentication to access the "content", even their own POP3 accounts. We appear to be coming back to that older model, with "free" dial-up subsidized by advertising at the providers. But I am strongly opposed to the big "middle" carriers charging both ends. It would never happen in a truly competitive market. It is clear that mergers such as GTE/BBN have passed the monopoly/oligopoly barrier. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32