IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2

Matthew Ford <ford@isoc.org> Fri, 02 October 2009 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ford@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61623A68BF for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFG7ysBnBBUB for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp200.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp200.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3643A659A for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E8D021B404D; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ford-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id 682C11B400B; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4AC5C3FF.7080407@isoc.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:12:31 +0100
From: Matthew Ford <ford@isoc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
References: <200910020007.n9207Yd9028543@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4AC59062.1070700@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <200910021028.22079.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
In-Reply-To: <200910021028.22079.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:11:06 -0000

On 02/10/2009 09:28, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Friday 02 October 2009 07:32:18 Michael Menth wrote:
>> Apart from that, I wonder whether a monthly congestion allowance or a
>> maximum congestion rate can be sold to the customer because that is more
>> abstract and harder to verify for the user. Even I do not know what I
>> get for a congestion allowance of 1 MB/month or a maximum congestion
>> rate of 10 KB/s. That was one of the criticisms I've heard when
>> discussing about re-feedback. Opinions?
>>
> I don't see that you have to sell the congestion rate to the costumer. It's
> just one part of the contract which will have some more or less meaningful
> names like "fast access" or "high speed access". People don't know what the
> max. access speed in todays contracts means neither...

+1. Furthermore, I think we should probably call 'rathole' whenever the 
question of how congestion volume gets translated into commercial 
contracts or marketing is raised.

Mat

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email