Re: [Tsvwg] Does anyone have a defence in favour of flow ratefairness?
Zack Best <zbest28@yahoo.com> Wed, 18 July 2007 12:11 UTC
Return-path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB8Ni-0003H7-KU; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:11:50 -0400
Received: from tsvwg by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IApVu-00055J-M6 for tsvwg-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:03:02 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IApVu-00055A-BI for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:03:02 -0400
Received: from web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.35]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IApVs-0005bj-MI for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:03:02 -0400
Received: (qmail 46619 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Jul 2007 16:03:00 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=eXAgeiUBq7rUQYZ5vyI3mGRvCgMa9YcZngxzA83J3pHUIETZQLLEhWYWN5HB+ct8Va+TxXDwaDa618a/F0Tifzo6NxbPWnZFNT7BqXZ+BlrfTsDTEXPxmq3HMcv/wzgjlQxAOmicl7bG/GeTeRvFRXPYQVQbFcDp30M7zTid3e4=;
X-YMail-OSG: J_v9QBsVM1kqQxThVECFQWZVPmj1LM7BMHoWtPHSlF0jQayw5k7nWFQyFdgU7ePJ3_LoXx0xs_Yce0HMz_rBxr_8V7DMuYqnCvibFjyEi2slKuP8KzYvLwC_2c_FfQ--
Received: from [138.239.78.107] by web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:03:00 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:03:00 -0700
From: Zack Best <zbest28@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Does anyone have a defence in favour of flow ratefairness?
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <107232.44814.qm@web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:11:49 -0400
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
>From draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-00b.txt > One of the obvious dangers of simple > implementations of QoS mechanisms or > of cost-based fairness, in the absence of the > protection of simple best-effort traffic, > would be that the users with more money > *could* end up completely shutting out users with > less money in times of congestion. There > seems to be fairly widespread agreement that > this would not be a desirable goal. I am curious why this is not a desirable goal let alone why there is widespread agreement of this. If people are paying a monthly fee to their ISP and if uninterrupted connectivity at relatively low bandwidth is important to them (which in most cases it is) wouldn't market forces work to make this happen? I.e. ISPs would spend their money to insure to insure customers got what they wanted, lest they lose business. On the other hand, may people (perhaps most of the world) are excluded from the internet because they can't afford the basic monthly fee to connect. A cost based system would theoretically lower the cost of entry for those who did not want to compete for bandwidth at contested times, and actually make limited connectivity available to a group previous excluded. There is certainly a recurring argument in the political arena between the free market advocates, and those who claim the free market would result in unfairness that is best addressed by enforced equality at the expense of choice and flexibility. I won't attempt to resolve that argument here, but my sympathies are certainly the the free market folks. Experience has shown over and over that market forces do a better job at scarce resource allocation than detractors predict and a better job than the proposed alternatives. This is not meant as a comment on the practicality of implementing cost based fairness, just as a defense of the goal. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
- Re: [Tsvwg] Does anyone have a defence in favour … Zack Best
- RE: [Tsvwg] Does anyone have a defence in favour … louise.burness