[e2e] New approach to diffserv...

[Panos GEVROS]

"David P. Reed" typed :

 |When I put a letter in the mail, the post office also has no control over 
 |what I send, and does not know how valuable this particular letter 
 |is.   Why should the network provider?


although this is true the mail system is what we all now it is while the 
Internet provides infinetely more capabilities (for personal communication, 
content distribution etc) - so I suspect there are many interested parties 
which would prefer to see the rules of the business to be a bit different.


 |It is apparent to me that this kind of thinking is contaminated by a crazy 
 |notion that the user/customer must serve the provider's needs.   The 


a big problem is that the providers should find a viable model for their 
business
and service differentiantion (price discrimination) can help (most people seem 
to agree on this) and it is not necessarily bad for the customer (more options 
more freedom)


 |provider of transport may indeed "ask" for information, but the user is 
 |only required to provide a minimum of information.
 |The "feudal system" in which the lord of the manor controls all the land, 
 |lets serfs farm it, and then controls the commerce they are allowed to 
 |engage in is not a market economy.   And its failed everywhere it has been 
 |tried (including the US South after 1865).   It even fails in large 
 |companies where the IT department tries to decide what information 
 |processes are allowed and what ones are not.


users can (or should be able to) change providers far easier than people were 
able to move to a different manor when they were unsatisfied with the local 
lord. -i don't think it is difficult from a technical point to make this 
migration painless for the client (largely political)-  there is definetely (a 
lot of) space for a market economy.


 i.e inferring legitimate use of the resource according  to
 |>contract or determining the value the customer derives from its connection 
to
 |>the network) are compilacated or in some cases impossible.
 |
 |Why is the network provider trying to determine "legitimate use"?


in case there are several service profiles the provider should ensure that the 
clients use their contracted profile and nothing more


 |>if there was a method allowing for provider control in what today is the
 |>client space (machine - network) then middleboxes would be redundant
 |
 |Here is where your real philosophy comes out.   I suppose AOL is right in 
 |saying that they ought to decide whether what people send each other in 
 |email is acceptable or not.


what I suggest is that providers have *the option* to exercise different 
levels of control over the "methods" (protocols/apps) their customers use to 
access the network (i.e what protocols etc are permitted not just the  names 
or the port numbers - but the actual implementation, the ways these are tuned 
etc) - i.e a solution that will remove the need for a midlebox in front of 
every internet host

never suggested breaching user privacy, imposing control on the content, 
censorship, restricting freedom of speech or anything of this sort  ..
how one ensures that the bad things above do not happen in practice is 
engineering as indeed were my concerns. whether this happens in practice -or 
in other words where one draws that line of control is politics.



Panos