Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Well as you know, for whatever reason, certain network prefixes turn out to
be the source of rather more unreliable traffic than others.



On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Richard Bennett 
<richard(_at_)bennett(_dot_)com>wrote:

 Indeed, K St. think tanks were heavily involved in the Kennedy
assassination, Watergate, and 9/11. Like IPv6, it's all about the address.

RB

On 9/14/2010 6:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

If you have such a poor opinion of engineers, then why post here?

 In my experience, K-street think tanks provide negative value. Almost
without exception they refuse to disclose their sources of funding while
peddling talking points written for them by the people who fund them.


 In this forum you are purporting to be a disinterested private individual
while being a paid staff member of a business that is paid to be an advocate
for a specific point of view on the subject you are posting on.

 Most people would consider that this would be an interest that required
disclosure.


On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Richard Bennett 
<richard(_at_)bennett(_dot_)com>wrote:

 I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant of
ARPANET, and that BB&N became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply by
continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path.

The dialog on Internet regulation is world-wide. The EC has an open
inquiry on it, and nations around the world are grappling with Internet
policy as they contemplate the best means of stimulating the deployment of
more capable infrastructure that will ultimately replace twisted pair with
coax and fiber and replace 2G and 3G mobile with LTE. Providing wholesale
access to the legacy twisted pair cable plant doesn't cause fiber to
magically spring up out of the Earth and connect homes together in a
seamless mesh.

Engineers have no more intrinsic insight into network policy than
economists have regarding network protocols; law professors are generally
lame on both fronts. The most interesting policy work regarding the Internet
these days comes from multi-disciplinary teams working in academe and in the
think tanks.

RB


On 9/14/2010 2:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 2010-09-15 04:36, Bob Braden wrote:


On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Noel Chiappa:

 I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including

how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the
IENs which document the early meetings might say more.

See RFC 760, which seems remarkably up-to-date:

     A few networks offer a Stream service, whereby one can achieve a
     smoother service at some cost.

 That might have been only a sideways acknowledgment of ST-II.

Not to mention that at the time, the great competitor for all this
new-fangled connectionless datagram stuff was X.25, a pay-per-connection
and pay-per-byte stream service.

As PHB says, intentions back then hardly matter anyway.

Maybe we can leave this debate to some USA local discussion list
where it belongs? Those of us in the economies where there is
competition on the local loop are not that interested.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


 --
 Richard Bennett


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


--
Richard Bennett



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf