[governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox

[Ian Peter]

Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
traffic.

Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows



Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
To: internet-history at postel.org
Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"

Mathias,

Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators. 
I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
figure it out, too.

23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
> 
> Ginger Paque schrieb:
> > This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
> 
> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
> 
> Good read on this:
> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
> 
> Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance