[Bloat] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Back to the root justification...

[David Collier-Brown]

For people interested, there is a discussion of the roots of the
"network neutrality" concept at internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org

Some of it seems, to my eyes, to be uninformed by the community that
works in the AQM space, so I see perfectly serious quotes like
>
>     Longer packets might be dropped in favor of shorter ones. Packets
>     in a
>     burst might be dropped in favor of ones that are spaced out.
>
>     This gets back to the point of neutrality - which describes some
>     level
>     of "equivalence", but there's never just one version of
>     equivalence that
>     everyone will accept.
>
>     If you want to preserve the Internet architecture, you need to
>     make sure
>     that:
>
>     Packets shall not be discriminated except on their inherent
>     properties (size, time of arrival) or explicit user-inserted
>     label (e.g., a QoS tag).
>
>     If you want to make sure that packets are "fairly dropped",
>     there's no
>     single such thing; one link might be bandwidth limited (so drop
>     proportional to length is fair), and the next might be header
>     processing
>     limited (so per-packet drop is fair); for a given path, there's no
>     single mechanism that satisfies the variety of fairnesses that
>     could be
>     required. 
>
If anyone's also interested in Network Neutrality and its roots, please
feel free to hop over and contribute some informed opinions (;-))

--dave





-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20140607/9927511e/attachment.html>