[e2e] Free Internet & IPv6

[Arjuna Sathiaseelan]

Dear Prof Reed,
   First of all - I need to thank you for taking your  time for
responding to this thread. Thanks

When I meant rate-limiting - I meant that if access points are only
allowed to support say x%of the unused capacity available (FON does
similar - it allows only upto 512Kbps) -- but at Less-than-Best-Effort
 to access only essential sites - no youtube/facebook - but national
health service, government forms, wikipedia etc and probably support
vital sensor/video data transmission with several offloading/onloading
methods..When the paid user comes online and starts using all his
capacity, then ofcourse the free user does'nt get anything until he
finds another access point to piggyback on..

The notion of CCN would make access to content better by caching @ the edges.

Regards
Arjuna

On 20 September 2012 23:54,  <dpreed at reed.com> wrote:
> I assume you are referring to commercial access provider pricing schemes.  I
> don't think the Internet protocol architecture says *anything* about "rate
> limited" behavior.
>
>
>
> In the radio world, a transmitter is not rate limited in principle.
> Depending on one's scheme for using fiber or copper, there's no obvious rate
> limit that makes sense.
>
>
>
> Physics has no rate limit built into the behavior of electrons and photons
> in real physical systems.  It's a constructed engineering concept - embedded
> in the engineering culture inherited from people who thought in terms of
> "fixed rate" systems, and statistical multiplexing within fixed rate
> systems.
>
>
>
> For example, my eye has no "fixed rate" perception of the world.
>
>
>
> Living in the strait-jacket of commercial offerings is pragmatic, but
> commerce can change.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Arjuna Sathiaseelan" <arjuna.sathiaseelan at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:52pm
> To: dpreed at reed.com
> Cc: "<end2end-interest at postel.org>" <end2end-interest at postel.org>, "Jon
> Crowcroft" <jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>, dhavey at yahoo.com, "Fred Baker
> (fred)" <fred at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Free Internet & IPv6
>
> Ofcourse if you werent rate limited.
>
> regardd
> arjuna
> On Sep 20, 2012 4:24 PM, <dpreed at reed.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bandwidth (actually bitrate - bandwidth is a "classic error" too, as us
>> radio guys continue to grit our teeth at the confusion...) is useless
>> without adequately quick latency.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, it is unused so that low latency can be present when it is
>> (suddenly and unpredictably) needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> When someone talks about "filling up bandwidth" - the only image that pops
>> into mind is a completely clogged city road system (LA freeways during rush
>> hour).  Full utilization of pavement - must be the best of all possible
>> worlds!
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Daniel Havey" <dhavey at yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:20pm
>> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred at cisco.com>
>> Cc: "Arjuna Sathiaseelan" <arjuna.sathiaseelan at gmail.com>, "Jon Crowcroft"
>> <jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>, "<end2end-interest at postel.org>"
>> <end2end-interest at postel.org>
>> Subject: Re: [e2e] Free Internet & IPv6
>>
>> So those who purchase blocks of bandwidth may give N-P to the community if
>> they choose?
>>
>> Hmmm, that is probably okay, but, N changes over time (diurnal cycle,
>> etc.). When my N increases to near P then the community must drop off the
>> link because the paying users are using it.
>>
>> This sounds a little like whitespace.
>>
>> ...Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/19/12, Fred Baker (fred) <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Fred Baker (fred) <fred at cisco.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [e2e] Free Internet & IPv6
>> > To: "<dhavey at yahoo.com>" <dhavey at yahoo.com>
>> > Cc: "Jon Crowcroft" <jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>, "Arjuna Sathiaseelan"
>> > <arjuna.sathiaseelan at gmail.com>, "<end2end-interest at postel.org>"
>> > <end2end-interest at postel.org>
>> > Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 6:00 PM
>> >
>> > On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Daniel Havey wrote:
>> >
>> > > I wonder why the bandwidth is unused in the first
>> > place?
>> >
>> > The most common reason is related to the diurnal cycle. When
>> > everyone's asleep, only the backup tool is running.
>> >
>> > The one after that is that bandwidth is generally purchased
>> > (for money) in fixed increments. If I need N bps and my
>> > options are M and P, where M < N < P, I either accept
>> > being congested some percentage of the time and go with the
>> > lower value, or increase to the upper one. In the latter
>> > case, I never use P-N.



-- 
Regards
Arjuna
http://about.me/arjuna.sathiaseelan