>> Nobody cares about AUPs in leaf networks. AUPs in transit backbones
>> are evil. Or everybody already forgot NSFNET AUP and the tons of
>> related hackery in routing policies all around the world?
> The interesting thing to me below is the assumption that there is
> an inherent difference between a transit backbone and a private
> leaf network.
Hm. Hm again. Should i start explaining why AUP-type traffic restrictions
(i.e. choice of different paths depending on who communicates with whom,
or all-out limited connectivity) are different from peer/transit routing
policy restrictions generally found in commercial networks which are
not interested in AUPs but rather in delivering bits efficiently?
No, I understand them fine, and I am puzzled at your response.
The peering policy restrictions are a method by which the use
policy is implemented. Certainly the content/availability
dichotomy exists, however it is not a black/white issue.
Then, any AUP related to government funding is not going to be traffic
path-based; but rather content-based, which makes it unenforceable by
means other than financial coercion.
I do believe that the great new internet would be at first traffic
path-based, regardless of what we're encouraged to believe.
Those of us who remember how it
worked with NSFNET would rather not have that experience again.
(Yes, and if you think the government wouldn't drag politics in it
you're mistaken -- i remember that getting traffic from USSR to be
allowed to NSFNET wasn't all that trivial; and thanks to Steve G.).
Obviously politics will be in it. The fact that the gov't is
sponsoring this makes that obvious.
>I believe Manning makes a good point that an AUP is inherent to a
Sorry, not. As is Internet is mostly AUP-free, meaning that nobody
cares about content or what providers do with traffic engineering.
So, SprintLink's network doesn't care if I send udp floods or default
> We have seen an increase in the discussions of AUP with respect to
> backbones (MCI/SL/UU). The discussions regarding dumping defaults
> and forced routing to destinations not advertised all centered
> around AUP.
Please, do not confuse AUPs and routing policies. Those are very different
beasts. AUPs are content-based. Routing policies are purely traffic
engineering. Routing policies are not a good tool to implement AUPs, and
in fact attempts to do that lead to very kludgy solutions, and leave
lots of loopholes anyway besides creating enormous headaches to
engineering of commercial carriers who are forced one way or another
to peer with AUP-full networks by the same government. We've already
got NAP peering requirement mess, thank you.
Why do you pose this as if I'm encouraging it? They are different but
they fit under a common point of interest, that being use, intent,
> While the case is there, it is not that strong. I think Sagan calls it a
I'm not sure why you want to apply scientific criteria to politics
or drag in the ghost of Carl.
Not to politics, but rather to the argument you made, which I
understood to be that since the government is involved, then
obviously this is just a way to censor and corral the american
Politic science is an oxymoron,
just like Christian Science. It isn't any worse to tote an ohmmeter as
a sacred device for measuring purity of devoted than to look for
rigid rules in political world governed by emotions.
Erm, perhaps you should read about pseudoscience before criticising
my point. The argument you made was based on things difficult to
prove, instead of based upon proven or supportable facts. If the
facts were supported (the government censors everything they own)
then the evidence wasn't apparent to me. The government owned
the NSFnet, yet they still allowed porn and rebellious material.
> Don't fool yourself. The I-2 is not the "faster Internet". It is
> a tool to force those pesky free-thinkers to shut up.
> Maybe. More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education
> institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).
Cheaper? Have you _ever_ seen anything done by the government that is
cheaper after you count all hidden costs? If it really can do things
better than market why not start from more worthy causes like government
supplying the foodstuffs? Oh, sorry, history is already clear on what
happens then, right? Few dozen millions dead in Ukrain. I guess people
allow goverments to play with networks and stuff just because it is not
as important as food. That still does not change the principle.
Not cheaper from a gross total. Cheaper to the educational
institutions. You misunderstood my point.
The academics (dear souls) would much rather have the government
pay for the nice network than to pay regionals and nsps to deliver
the QOS they want...
> I don't blindly accept the altruistic guise under which it was presented,
> but I do think there are sig. other reasons beyond government
Aw, how cute. Sounds like first-grader's taking about Granddad Lenin.
Surely smart grown-up people up will show us the Only And True Way,
they sure know better how to spend our money.
If I didn't have so much respect for you Vadim, I'd think you had
become a bit cynical and jaded.
There is no question that governmental funding will encourage
governmental control. I am always in favor of free-market over
I do believe you make a very valid point that this is a concern
that we as savvy folks must watch.
However, to simply say that the government is doing this to
control the US traffic content is not proven, and most likely
false. That's like saying the US Government invented wars so they
could control what the government contractors do and who they buy
things from. Certainly that is a painful side effect, but I
believe it to be distinct from the intent.