Re: why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex

>> All of us would agree that any use of shared resource needs some
>> policing - if for nothing else - to at-least prevent it from being
>> hogged completely by rogue elements to the extent it becoming
>> unusable.
>
>
> Huh? All of us certainly do not agree, doesn't the rest of your argument
> collapse, then?

Yes, it would indeed collapse to an extent! Policing is a 'strong
word', isn't moderation a right word? (especially in view of recent
events on this very site?)

> What rogue elements are you talking about, pray?

Well rogue elements here I am talking about misbehaving traffic flows
(eg. UDP flows - which have no end-to-end flow control - if not
identified, metered and policed - could throttle bandwidth in the
network, which could otherwise be used for useful things - (the
definition of useful changes per user agreed)). The point is - what it
takes to police those flows - exactly the same it takes to provide -
preferential treatment to other flows (may be little extra -
allocating memory etc). But the cost argument about that is not valid
- as all of this is - free (software) or commodity (hardware). So if
one is fine - with absolutely un-policed network, one can indeed
safely argue - that there's additional complexity in 'preferring a
flow' but not otherwise.




> Arun Mehta



-- 
अभिजीत

[ http://oltsm.wordpress.com ]

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii