COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Tue Mar 17 16:12:43 UTC 2020

On 17/Mar/20 17:38, Mike Bolitho wrote:

>
> Totally agree with you. Unfortunately it's not a problem with the
> medical providers, it's a problem with the medical devices. Anybody
> who works in the healthcare vertical will tell you just how bad
> medical devices are to work with from an IT perspective. And that is
> part of my original comments.

I guess that means they don't support IPv6 :-)?

> I don't know what it's going to take either. A general shift in
> mentality from the vendors we use I guess. I'm not sure how you get a
> bunch of medical providers to tell these companies they need to fix
> their stuff. You can't exactly use your wallet to force change either.
> There are only a handful of vendor options out there so there isn't a
> ton of choice. It's not like you can buy one of 50 different models of
> CT machines or EHR systems.

Ah, so equipment vendors are simply rolling out kit with an IP stack,
without a care of how the hospitals will actually operate them on the
Internet? Tick-in-the-box, type-thing :-)?

Much like how gaming producers write code so that updates are whole
blobs rather than incremental changes, without a care for the network
operators/customers, because it's just easier?

Or like how CPE manufacturers ship hardware with hard-coded DNS settings
to make provisioning as zero-touch as possible.

Or like how...

I'd say someone should spend some time sensitizing the medical equipment
OEM's about their potential impact on/by the Internet, but something
tells me they won't care, nor will the doctors/hospitals they market to.

>
> Generally speaking it's not an issue. It's just in crazy times like
> these where, if congestion on the public internet gets too crazy, that
> certain platforms might need to be deemed "unnecessary". Is playing
> Fortnight a right? Is streaming a movie in 4K a right? In cases like
> San Francisco they have decided that leaving your home for anything
> other than work or medical care is no longer a right because you're
> now infringing on other's rights by potentially getting them sick.
> Maybe 4K Netflix fits into that category if you're causing problems
> for first responders and hospitals trying to save lives.

The difference between the SFO gubbermint and the ISP's that operate
around the world is one of governance scope. A city gubbermint may be
able to impose rules and laws against its citizens. Whether they can do
that to an ISP, especially an ISP that either is based out of state or
out of the country, is where the issue lies.

But even before all that - if an ISP's raison d'être is to deliver 4K
Netflix to its users, and they pay their good money to vendors and
providers to achieve this, who are we to tell them their business is
deemed "unnecessary"?

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200317/0279f3ab/attachment.html>