Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Tue Jul 22 02:06:06 UTC 2014
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
> On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> >>>But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> >>>there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> >>"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
> >>transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an
> >>IP packet from'"
> >>-- Seth Breidbart.
> >I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence
> >classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet
> >from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and
> >say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
> >In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached
> >by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall
> >or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does
> >not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
> >Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’
> >partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
> >Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest
> >subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations
> >hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
> >That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
> When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`
We probably shouldn't talk about it in public.
"A discrete math course, on the other hand..."
More information about the NANOG