[e2e] Re: crippled Internet
J.Crowcroft at cs.ucl.ac.uk
Wed Apr 18 08:13:11 PDT 2001
i dont have a problem with ISPs having rulkes based on provisioning
- and i understand the limited nature of the access link for cable
modem nets - but hey, the ISP makes its choices as to access
the point is that it isn't seling bandidth, its selling non
discrimatory access to other IP access points and TCP is the basic
sharing rule - if it wants to be in a different business, it can
call itself AOL:-)
In message <126.96.36.199.2.20010418105758.00a05d40 at 10.30.15.2>, RJ Atkinson typed:
>>At 10:43 18/04/01, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>>(would someone like to start a phone company that allows outgoing
>>>calls only -? not much of a business case:-)
>> It is well known that the technical limitations of
>>cable modem networks include the asymmetric bandwidth
>>(very limited upstream capacity, relative to downstream)
>>and the shared nature of the bandwidth (more like big yellow
>>Ethernet than the modern switched stuff).
>> Neither RR nor @Home actually prevent users from offering
>>a server/service, provided it doesn't cause such bandwidth
>>problems that other users sharing the same commons (i.e.
>>last mile subnet) complain. This is all about preventing
>>a tragedy of the commons, nothing more sinister than that.
>> I think the service offerings are quite reasonable,
>>particularly for the quite low monthly cost. Neither @Home
>>nor RoadRunner has griped about my VPN or firewall or
>>other 'unusual' services in use over their network.
>> Clearly you disagree with me. Degustibus non
>>disputantum est. :-)
More information about the end2end-interest