ip-precedence for management traffic
trejrco at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 11:18:24 CST 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) [mailto:marcus.sachs at 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
> size-fits-all model like the hotels try to do. Imagine a residential ISP
> offers castration at a lower price point than what is currently charged
> monthly "raw" access. I think that many consumers would opt for that
> while those who need access to everything would continue to pay the same
> The price drop would be the incentive to get castrated, and what you give
> 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
> hijacked residential computers.
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.
PS - could we choose a different term; "cut-rate castration" brings
unpleasant medical-accidents to mind ...
More information about the NANOG