is this argument by technical deflection….?i’m sorry my generalizing isn’t precise.topologies vs technology. me bad.

There is a large body of knowledge and “laws” for the Internet already, and they are primarily technical definitions. Besides RFCs, you have BCPs, (Best Current Practices) which you can use to compare and contrast with the actual operations and configurations of most networks. The problemwith NN legislation, is that it violates these more important operational considerations.

For example according to the the asinine Markley and Snowe Dorgan, as well as some technically more accurate proposals, BCP38 would not be in compliance. IN otherwords, broadly read these proposals would “break” the Internet.

technology isn’t the Internet

Oh thats right, I forgot. It’s magic.

The point is that you can’t regulate networks by hand-waving, you have to be able to say in precise and unambiguous language what’s good and what’s bad, making sure you don’t cast your net too widely.

max,
is this argument by technical deflection….?
i’m sorry my generalizing isn’t precise.
topologies vs technology. me bad.

my point here isn’t about technical accuracy,
L2,L3, L4-L7 deep packet processing, load balancing,
jitter, demod, your right on these points as well as constraints.

but economically
who controls the pipe and
who controls the content?
what constraints are considered along the way.

network topologies/technologies, tend to be more efficient than
pt2pt connections (legacy telco domain). but the idea is to improve
utilization for the owner of the pipe, content provider, the end user/consumer or all of the above.

Nash suggests a balance point exists.
K street isn’t about balance,
it’s mandating profit, through legistlation.

that’s what net neutrality bill is about,
securing the interests of telcos without balancing
the ‘common interests of americans’ as well as the companies.

the internet

my point isn’t what protocol we’re using, whether ARP RARP, with load balance et all et all.. technology isn’t

The mindreader blognround peers into his crystal ball and sees the wicked profit motive:

… After throwing around a bunch of incoherent buzzwords that call into question the posters understanding of the issues technical foundations.

Example:

that’s distinctly different than creating optimal switching topologies and maximizing throughput for end users at a reasonable profit.

First off, there are only two switching topologies ( defined as Physical and Datalink, Not routing) in wide use today. Stars and Rings. There are meshes as well, but they only work well for wireless… Wired networks are not good candidates for meshing.

Perhaps you meant technologies? Tony Li (who arguably has done more for the modern Internet than Vint Cerf has.) is working for a wireless startup (tropos I think) , so I think we’re going to see some pretty intense competition from Metro Wireless sooner than expected, something that should help ease peoples fears about “Last Mile Duopolies.”

Next up, Optimization requires descrimination. All network, and systems architectures have constraints. The first and most important is that the network is reslient to faults and be able to protect itself from harm. This poses some interesting capacity vs. reliability tradeoffs that could be considered “suboptimal” from either a reliability or performance standpoint.

After that, the requirements get a little muddy, and this is where I think this network theory holy war needs to take a back seat to the realities of modern networking. For example, some things need minimized jitter and delay, not maximized throughput. Should I be required to build two seperate physical networks in order to meet the differing sets of requirements? (An insane proposition by any stretch of the imagination ) Or should I use the same network and have it adapt?

…that’s distinctly different than creating optimal switching topologies and maximizing throughput for end users at a reasonable profit.

Telcos would die to have one-tenth the profit margin that Google enjoys, dude.