nanog mailing list archives

RE: ip-precedence for management traffic


From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:18:24 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) [mailto:marcus.sachs () verizon com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:43
To: Joe Greco
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: RE: ip-precedence for management traffic

Joe wrote:

Getting back to the OP's message, I keep having these visions of the
castrated "Internet" access some hotels provide.  You know the ones.
The ones where everything goes through a Web proxy and you're forced
to have IE6 as a browser.  For some people, who just want to log on
to Yahoo or Hotmail or whatever to check their e-mail, that's fine.
However, some of us might want to be able to VNC somewhere, or do
VoIP, or run a VPN connection...  these are all well-known Internet
capabilities, and yet some providers of so-called "Internet" access
at hotels haven't allowed for them.

Do we really want to spread that sort of model to the rest of the
Internet?  All it really encourages is for more and more things to
be ported to HTTP, including, amusingly, management of devices...
at which point we have not really solved the problem but we have
succeeded at doing damage to the potential of the Internet.


Yes, taking away the mechanisms will result in a "castrated" Internet
experience for the clueful ones which is why I don't think this can be a
one-
size-fits-all model like the hotels try to do.  Imagine a residential ISP
that
offers castration at a lower price point than what is currently charged
for
monthly "raw" access.  I think that many consumers would opt for that
choice,
while those who need access to everything would continue to pay the same
rate.
The price drop would be the incentive to get castrated, and what you give
up
would be access to things you likely don't use anyway.  This castration
process would be a big help to spam-blocking, evilware-blocking, ddos-
blocking, etc. in addition to mitigating attacks against the mechanisms
from
hijacked residential computers.


Marc

My $.02 or so - This "widespread castration" would force application
developers to jump through the same NAT-traversal hoops all over again,
adding more code-bloat / operational overhead and stifling innovation.
Naturally, once created, this lower-class of internet user would probably
become the "norm" and force a race to the bottom in terms of capabilities
and performance (or perhaps, another "arms race" between the proxy
implementations and the proxy avoidance implementations) ...
rinse-repeat-fail_to_learn, all over again.


/TJ
PS - could we choose a different term; "cut-rate castration" brings
unpleasant medical-accidents to mind ...



Current thread: