Re: [76attendees] A Net Neutrality comment

Hey Fred,

Thanks for this little study.  Note that this doesn't necessarily
argue for *application* throttling, as much as for *user* throttling.
The network might want to prevent the bittorrent user from interfering
with you, but the he can be left free to shut down his own VPN if he
wants to.

--Richard

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> A remark to those who take a militant libertarian view of Net Neutrality,
> and those of ledbat and tcpm who have difficulty understanding why
> transports should tune to the knee (just enough of data outstanding, aka
> cwnd, to maintain the maximum goodput) as opposed to the cliff (the knee
> plus the maximum depth of the bottleneck queue, at which point throughput
> has not increased but loss has increased).
>
> Saturday night, as I do many nights that I spend at hotels, I ran a ping
> study to characterize the network. It was obviously massively
> overprovisioned - it was difficult to register RTT variance in excess of a
> millisecond trans-pacific between Japan and the US. I did this again last
> night. The network behavior as measured from my room was equally stable
> until about 11:58 PM; at that point, someone fired up something huge, my
> guess being something that uses bittorrent, delay dramatically increased,
> and my VPN went down within a couple of minutes. When this happens,
> customers call ISPs and ISPs start throttling applications, because the
> applications are doing horrible things to the ISPs' customers.
>
> The attached are a case in point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 76attendees mailing list
> 76attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees
>
>