[cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?)

On 20 mar 2014, at 22:18, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel at google.com> wrote:

> Your take is really interesting, Patrik, and exactly the kind of knowledge I think RIPE and the broader technical community could inject into these processes. 

It has been injected, repeatedly, but the level of clue among the ones actually writing the text is too low. And too many lobbyists want this bad vague language.

> Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? 

Unknown to me. I do not know where the text is at the moment.

   Patrik

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based
> network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded.
> That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results
> in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get
> whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or
> whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3
> network.
> 
> If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that?
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote:
> > In my opinion, that kind of specialized  services are a VPN. It’s no
> > Internet.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Innocenzo Genna
> > *Genna Cabinet Sprl *
> > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium
> >
> > Skype: innonews
> > Twitter:@InnoGenna
> > Email: inno at innogenna.it <mailto:inno at innogenna.it>
> >
> > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/
> > <http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/>
> > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com <http://www.innocenzogenna.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se
> > <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> ha scritto:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote:
> >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna <inno at innogenna.it
> >>> <mailto:inno at innogenna.it>
> >>> <mailto:inno at innogenna.it>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications
> >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services,
> >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity
> >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not
> >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service;
> >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and
> >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;]
> >>>
> >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the
> >>> problem?
> >>>
> >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end
> >>> network controlled by the service supplier.
> >>>
> >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk
> >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...".
> >>
> >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all
> >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets
> >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N).
> >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then
> >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get
> >> reordered).
> >>
> >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can
> >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher
> >> than some SLA for end users paying less).
> >>
> >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example:
> >>
> >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their
> >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what
> >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...)
> >>
> >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc.
> >>
> >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have
> >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc.
> >>
> >>   Patrik
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Meredith Whittaker
> Program Manager, Google Research
> Google NYC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140321/090aae85/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140321/090aae85/attachment.sig>