
Agreed.

Although my preference is (as you stated earlier) 'graceful
degradation' in the face of congestion, not intentional degradation
of traffic based on some arbitrary monetray boundary.

Again, there should never be a case for _intentional_ "less-
than-best-effort", in the traditional sense.

Of course, these arguments assume that the service provider does
the Right Thing (tm) w.r.t. capacity planning & engineering. ;-)

- ferg

-- Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:

On Friday 16 December 2005 09:21, Fergie wrote:

> Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
> analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick
> all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win
> proposal.

A stupid network is easier for malicious applications to exploit.  Need a 
balance point, not either extreme.


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/


