<div dir="ltr">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. <div><br></div><div>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? </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based<br>
network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded.<br>
That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results<br>
in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get<br>
whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or<br>
whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3<br>
network.<br>
<br>
If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that?<br>
<br>
Patrik<br>
<div class=""><br>
On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote:<br>
> In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It’s no<br>
> Internet.<br>
><br>
> -----------------------------------------<br>
> Innocenzo Genna<br>
</div>> *Genna Cabinet Sprl *<br>
<div class="">> 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium<br>
><br>
> Skype: innonews<br>
> Twitter:@InnoGenna<br>
</div>> Email: <a href="mailto:inno@innogenna.it">inno@innogenna.it</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:inno@innogenna.it">inno@innogenna.it</a>><br>
<div class="">><br>
> my blog:<a href="http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/</a><br>
> <<a href="http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/</a>><br>
</div>> my music: <a href="http://www.innocenzogenna.com" target="_blank">www.innocenzogenna.com</a> <<a href="http://www.innocenzogenna.com" target="_blank">http://www.innocenzogenna.com</a>><br>
<div class="">><br>
><br>
><br>
> Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik Fältström <<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a>>> ha scritto:<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote:<br>
>>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna <<a href="mailto:inno@innogenna.it">inno@innogenna.it</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:inno@innogenna.it">inno@innogenna.it</a>><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:inno@innogenna.it">inno@innogenna.it</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> 15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications<br>
>>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services,<br>
>>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity<br>
>>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not<br>
>>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service;<br>
>>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and<br>
>>>> applications available over the public internet access service;]<br>
>>><br>
>>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the<br>
>>> problem?<br>
>>><br>
>>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end<br>
>>> network controlled by the service supplier.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk<br>
>> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...".<br>
>><br>
>> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all<br>
>> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible.<br>
>><br>
>> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets<br>
>> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N).<br>
>> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then<br>
>> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get<br>
>> reordered).<br>
>><br>
>> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can<br>
>> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher<br>
>> than some SLA for end users paying less).<br>
>><br>
>> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example:<br>
>><br>
>> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their<br>
>> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what<br>
>> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...)<br>
>><br>
>> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc.<br>
>><br>
>> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have<br>
>> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc.<br>
>><br>
>> Patrik<br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><br></div>Meredith Whittaker<br>Program Manager, Google Research<div>Google NYC<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
</div>