From: Joseph Jackson <jjackson@aninetworks.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 -0700From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jeroen@mompl.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be fasterKevin Oberman wrote:
> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
> excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
> loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
> most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.Not having read any of the articles and not having researched the matter
of network neutrality much at all. But wouldn't using either a VPN
service or setting up VPN on one or more virtual servers at strategic
locations of your choice avoid this? Unless "they" try to bandwidth
limit your VPN tunnel(s) indiscriminately. Or did I miss something
blatantly obvious?At least VPN does a great job of "routing around" GeoIP blocking...
The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service
then your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on
forwarding. So while it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject
to the same quality of service settings as any other traffic that
isn't paying for a faster service.Joseph
VPNs are very handy for this, but it is worth remembering that it is not
free. All of the traffic has to traverse the network to the VPN box and
then to the client. This can hit congestion issues, but always increases
RTT and that can be a real pain.