On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:

Woow this is fantactic news. Oh wait. Didnt Akamai invent this years ago?

I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

* Graham Beneke:

On 09/08/2010 07:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

...

I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P

What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds of content distribution nodes in Africa for over a year.

They certainly have got infrastructure all over the globe. The Verizon is probably just a private peering agreement, and someone misinterpreted that (or deliberately misrepresented it). -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

On 09 Aug 10 12:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Graham Beneke:

...

On 09/08/2010 07:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

...

I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember correctly. So it's at least a decade ago :P

What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds of content distribution nodes in Africa for over a year.

They certainly have got infrastructure all over the globe.

Hmmm. "If it plays in [insert name of locale in Africa]" will not have the same ring as "Peoria." For the older genset anyway. Maybe if it rhymes? Spoken to a musical backdrop? The current crop of youts will not hesitate once.

The Verizon is probably just a private peering agreement, and someone misinterpreted that (or deliberately misrepresented it).

Or it was supposed to be a secret. G was still denying any sort of agreement with V, last I heard. Reese

Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' - something they deny in the call? I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112 j On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>wrote:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-ope...

Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

Nor ensure 'lawful' content On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:

The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection which violates every users privacy.

Zaid

On 8/9/10 11:52 AM, "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:

...

Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' - something they deny in the call?

I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112

j

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com wrote:

...

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-ope...

...

-internet.html

Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least in PA: http://www.pennpirg.org/action/google?id4=es On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 15:46 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:29:46 EDT, Joly MacFie said:

...

Nor ensure 'lawful' content

Do you *really* want to go there?

It makes the thread very hard to follow.

Why not?

...

Please don't top post!

From: Justin Horstman <justin.horstman@gorillanation.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:54:12 -0700

That link is silly, and completely opposite to what they said....

-----Original Message----- From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoffman@ip-solutions.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:00 AM To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster

Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least in PA:

http://www.pennpirg.org/action/google?id4=es

The NY Times article has little to nothing to do with reality and it was bad of PennPIRG to cite that bit of twaddle. That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network. It is being widely interpreted as being anti-network neutrality. Whether Google intended this is unclear. I suspect Verizon wanted exactly what it got. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

-----Original Message----- From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jeroen@mompl.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster Kevin Oberman wrote:

That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.

Not having read any of the articles and not having researched the matter of network neutrality much at all. But wouldn't using either a VPN service or setting up VPN on one or more virtual servers at strategic locations of your choice avoid this? Unless "they" try to bandwidth limit your VPN tunnel(s) indiscriminately. Or did I miss something blatantly obvious? At least VPN does a great job of "routing around" GeoIP blocking... The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service then your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on forwarding. So while it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject to the same quality of service settings as any other traffic that isn't paying for a faster service. Joseph

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 PDT, Joseph Jackson said:

The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service then your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on forwarding. So while it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject to the same quality of service settings as any other traffic that isn't paying for a faster service.

This sounds suspiciously like Matt Blaze's observation: "A commercial CA will protect you from anyone whose money it refuses to take". As usual, it ends up as "follow the money".

Top posting reformatted.

Kevin Oberman wrote:

...

...

That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.

From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:53:07 -0400

Isn't the essence of consensus is to find common areas of agreement while punting on the rest. There's plenty to focus on that IS in there, like transparency and FCC control?

You can punt the rest, but when the wording states that a large and rapidly growing segment of the network is subject to having preferred services is a bit more that a 'punt'. Also, the wording seems to work hard at making sure that you will always be able to justify any "non-neutral' things you might decide to do. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:

The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection which violates every users privacy.

how is that though? you COULD do something odd like say: "Anything to zaid-ali's netblocks is preferred in queues over things to jolymacfie's netblocks. that wouldn't require any DPI at all, just a traffic classification engine on/near the endpoint, say like on the DocSIS modem, or on the handset itself... many handsets are unix-ish things with some ability to do 'firewall' things, certainly they could mark packets outbound, certainly at peering points a network could classify in simple ways and mark packets properly there as well. nothing required DPI, unless you want to delve into: "That is not ssh on port 22" port 443 is the new port 80! woot! -chris

Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2? Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same performance?

I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity, with the action of intentionally QOS'ing Netflix over Youtube over the same uplink. One is a reality, and one offers disturbing possibilities. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg

I don't see providers ever pushing it that far down the stream. Would you be willing to pay more for your consumer connection to maintain those types of features? Business connections, absolutely. It's really about controlling bandwidth on the shared link, not your individual home connection. So for connectivity feeding a neighborhood or apartment building the question arises do you allow multiple users to use all of the bandwidth for P2P and crowd out your Netflix traffic? The question is should Netflix have to pay more to ensure quality service to their streaming subscribers? I view this exercise as paying for priority when the circuit is full -- like a special carpool lane. It's not like the provider will randomly send you traffic you don't want. If Netflix sucks do you blame your provider or Netflix? In the end, do you switch providers or cancel Netflix? My guess is most consumers will cancel Netflix before they switch their Internet provider. Not saying that this can't be abused by providers not having in enough capacity and content companies bidding to be most important on the circuit. On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Kenny Sallee <kenny.sallee@gmail.com>wrote:

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>wrote:

...

...

Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2? Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same performance?

I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity, with the action of intentionally QOS'ing Netflix over Youtube over the same uplink. One is a reality, and one offers disturbing possibilities.

Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg

Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer. The last mile is 'usually' where congestion really hits. Why not build a portal for consumers to go in an choose what's important to them? I know some MPLS VPN providers do something similar (have a portal businesses can use to view and modify QoS settings). I'd love to be able to prioritize Netflix over youtube or bittorrent or whatever games my kids are playing since I mainly use Netflix to watch movies. But I wouldn't like the big guys dictating what is important to me.

so you'd like to foist the problem off to the provider

(cost/configuration) and benefit? Are you willing to pay some incrementally higher charge per month for that service? what about for security services? Do you think there are enough folks willing to pay for this sort of thing that it'd make a decent business to be in?

-Chris

Yes I would pay more to ensure the apps I care about work. I don't think I would for security services however. I think that other consumers may - if an SP could actually provide it (and prove what they are providing is doing something).

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>wrote:

...

Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer.

The consumer already has this option on many SOHO firewalls. No action by ISPs is required. But this is totally irrelevant to the idea of Net Neutrality.

Yes - but you can only traffic shape / prioritize so much after the data has reached your end of a circuit / connection. So yes those SOHO devices do it - but if you look on the wire - you'll see more actual bandwidth making it across then you are expecting. The SOHO devices are just buffering / dropping stuff / manipulating TCP flows to slow unimportant stuff down. It's a better solution to do this on the provider side

...

I view this exercise as paying for priority when the circuit is full -- like a special carpool lane.

Carrier circuits should never be 'full', unless your definition of 'full' is 50-70%, IMHO. 100% full is a failure of engineering, business planning, and monitoring. Priority shouldn't be required.

True - but we are not talking about carrier circuits in the core. Agree with your statements regarding core carrier circuits. We are talking about the 'last mile' DSL/Cable/Fiber connection into your house. My bandwidth is pegged everytime I download a new version of Linux from bittorrent. During that time - my VoIP and Netflix have issues.

Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg