IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79223A0CA4 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HcfYbc27iXg for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90CD83A10C7 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/xBv5oKSzFnHZuXM15iOeTR46m0pZFuwaBAOkOFtCPA=; b=0j/phERaFX8UlsStJs7GF0TiZ oYn84j8zM3xW7dqUqgOkXX4D3+oykir9K3I/Lucd71YAlMqS898sHU4UZnXzMUFhL30Ph0tC6jZGD g+d8uWIMbbHObawCgmglkA+gSdj/kpf4+0puRWAkeoOCjLiU3IZta5vAE6PXd75n0McqkyR90LgoM GrcbV2h0wjXXEWurbmw8zZcyxtxTnTKz6BOB1WntEEeYIjNwnbOhNJ+eHpGoaWNY3iDwZntfUCegs 7xkmoIAWecl0kqiKF6waCG8dTfxDk0boUqScm3RinYWpTycDum9+e+IeOLoH97kqT5YGru/FFH+gb ZiAI3vCXQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61727 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1k7gg3-003DsE-ST; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:04:04 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A2ABF8F2-4625-4D88-9D75-1362E4B94DAC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB057308CC06E712D6B372D4A8C25F0@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:03:59 -0700
Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <3E4ACDE8-2DA4-45FC-9890-71CE93982182@strayalpha.com>
References: <754DE168-DF3B-4471-A145-39C6143E538A@comcast.net> <FB381338-A278-45B2-A40B-3A065E3A3ED1@strayalpha.com> <1fd2ed7d-d4bc-c5b7-9a4a-7966d5e60513@gmail.com> <20200817074637.GW62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <LO2P265MB057308CC06E712D6B372D4A8C25F0@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/-Gev6WFTjlk6wccW4f5jA8PtLTU>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:04:25 -0000


> On Aug 17, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote:
> 
>> ...  My personal preference is for networks to be transparent in the way that they manage traffic (if at all) so that I can choose my network based on what they do.


Hmm. How many *choices* do you have?

The last time I looked, over 1/3 of the US had only one ISP, i.e., no choice. I’m in the metro area of the second largest US city and have 2 “choices” for high-capacity connectivity (i.e., not cellular), one of which is nearly bankrupt.

And let’s say I get both of those - it’s not like I can run apps connected to different WIFI access points at the same time from a single host.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email