Re: [p2pi] One more proposed definition of fairness...

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

Nicholas Weaver wrote:
...
> > > > > Furthermore, you can resist the attacks you mentioned.  Because the 
> > > > > ISP can prevent the user from minting new IP addresses (as they 
> > > > > control the point of attachment), this prevents address forging.
> > > >
> > > > Sure - the local ISP can prevent that. You can't prevent someone 
> > > > accessing multiple ISPs (cable, DSL, etc.), but presumably you don't 
> > > > care about that?
> > > Yeah, why should the ISP care?  Its because common congestion pretty 
> > > much only occurs within the ISP, so it is the ISP's problem to 
> > > mitigate, and in the ISP's interest to mitigate.
> > > Someone who's using multiple ISPs to transfer more bits is paying for 
> > > those extra bits, and it doesn't really matter.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but if I have one ISP, I paid for THOSE 
> > bits too. How I use them is up to me, not the ISP.
>
> I don't see what our disagreement is.  Users paying for multiple 
> accounts get more bandwidth, and as ISP A doesnt' see the packets going 
> through ISP-B, it doesn't matter to A what they are doing elsewhere.

We agree on that. We agree that if I pay two ISPs for BW, I get to use 
both. Do you agree that if I pay one ISP for BW, I get to use it - all 
of it? (i.e., if this is about ISP internal congestion, then the ISP is 
at fault for underprovisioning, not the user)

I get the impression that if an ISP has upstream congestion, you think 
it gets to limit the number of flows I send; I think that my packets can 
get dropped due to congestion, but it's not useful for the ISP to have a 
different notion of 'fairness' than the endpoint.

Joe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi