DNS pulling BGP routes?

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Mon Oct 18 19:40:09 UTC 2021

On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> ----- On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com wrote:
> Hi,
>> On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>>> The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control
>>> a network owned and paid for by someone else.
>>> Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the
>>> opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable for you to tell me
>>> how to run configure my routers, and you think it is unreasonable for me
>>> to configure my routers that I pay for the way that I want to.
>> Yeahbut, for the last mile that network is often a monopoly or maybe a
>> duopoly if you're lucky. If streaming provider 1 pays ISP to give
>> priority over streaming provider 2 -- maybe by severely rate limiting
>> provider 2 -- the people who get screwed are end users without a way to
>> vote with their feet. That sort of monopolistic behavior is bad for end
>> users. Mostly I want ISP's to be dumb bit providers and stay out of
>> shady deals that enrich ISP's at my expense. And if it takes regulation
>> to do that, bring it.
> I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that
> we're talking about.
> My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly
> so that users actually do have a way out and can vote with their feet. From
> that perspective, the NBN model isn't that bad (not trying to start an NBN
> flamewar here).
> But, I would be opposed to regulation that prevents a network operator from
> going into enable mode.
> There are more reasons than "government intervention into a privately owned
> network" / "network neutrality" to want more competition. Lower prices and
> better service, for example. Have you ever tried calling Comcast/Spectrum?
> I'd love to get involved (privately, not professionally) in a municipal
> broadband project where I live. We have 1 fiber duct for the entire town.
> That got cut last year, and literally everyone was without internet access
> for many hours. We don't need net neutrality. We need competition. The FCC
> sucks, and so does the CPUC.

I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint 
regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual 
daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be 
painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL is not "oh 
great, more customers for us!" but "oh great, let's do that too!". 
Witness airlines and the race to the bottom with various fees -- and 
that's in a field where there is plenty of competition.

This is obviously complicated and one of the complications is QoS in the 
last mile. DOCSIS has a lot of QoS machinery so that MSO's could get CBR 
like flows for voice back in the day. I'm not sure whether this ever got 
deployed because as is often the case, brute force and ignorance (ie, 
make the wire faster) wins, mooting the need. Is there even a 
constructive use of QoS in the last mile these days that isn't niche? 
Maybe gaming? Would any sizable set of customers buy it if it were offered?

If there isn't, a regulation that just says "don't cut deals to 
prioritize one traffic source at the expense of others" seems pretty 
reasonable, and probably reflects the status quo anyway.


More information about the NANOG mailing list