<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFF00" text="#000000">
<font face="Franklin Gothic Demi">In the "Free Internet IPv6" thread
the issue of "dealing with the <br>
Traffic" has been recently mentioned.<br>
<br>
I have taken the freedom to put my point of view in the recent
statement<br>
<br>
"Desirable Trends in Mobile Communication", <br>
ACM Mobile Computing and Communication Review (M2CR), <br>
Vol 16. No.1 (Jan 2012) </font><small><small><a
href="http://www.tkn.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg112/Papers/MC2R_paper_V3_3c.pdf">PDF</a><br>
</small></small><font face="Franklin Gothic Demi"><br>
which might be of interest to some of you. <br>
<br>
best <br>
adam </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19.09.2012 14:45, Jon Crowcroft
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEeTejJBWkg_bBamTDwkHgYe840dD62OWTzCkF6H-hjHhCxjFg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">classic error - the problem is peak allocation for
rare events is running nets at 40% load so everyone watching
youtube/iplayer olympics works but tha means mean load is < 4%
<div><br>
</div>
<div>simple then to give capacity to others during the 23.5 hours
we're running at mean<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Daniel
Havey <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dhavey@yahoo.com" target="_blank">dhavey@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I wonder why the bandwidth is unused in the first place? Is
it being wasted because it is of little value? What
bandwidth are we talking about? I guess that bandwidth as a
commodity would have a time and place. Bandwidth on what
router and when?<br>
<br>
Is it bandwidth on the routers between the cat video
community and youtube? Or the bandwidth on some router that
nobody wants to use anyways?<br>
<br>
Maybe TANSAFL is not so easy to defeat.<br>
<br>
...Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
--- On Wed, 9/19/12, Jon Crowcroft <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
From: Jon Crowcroft <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>><br>
<div class="im">Subject: Re: [e2e] Free Internet & IPv6<br>
</div>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fred@cisco.com">fred@cisco.com</a>><br>
Cc: "Arjuna Sathiaseelan" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com">arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com</a>>,
"<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:end2end-interest@postel.org">end2end-interest@postel.org</a>>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:end2end-interest@postel.org">end2end-interest@postel.org</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 1:20 AM<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
So here's an idea - (pace, Bob Briscoe and Google Adwords)<br>
</div>
Decongestant Adverts (DA - LikeCongestion Exposure, only
backwards - employing Yet Another Level of Redirection
called<br>
Re-Re-ECN...<br>
<br>
bandwidth doesn't have much operational cost - te real cosrt
is the shadow price of other people's traffic you displace -
if there isn't other traffic, then the additional cost of
carrying yours is little.<br>
<br>
So we can have a receiver pays model for capacity - and the
way they pay is via third party ads..<br>
now this works very nicely if we observe thatcongesiton
exposire requires you to transparently reveal where the
congestion is - i.e. the source of ECN marks...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
so the source can also reflect the receiver to a wiling
advertiser site, who then sends adverts with
ECN-willing-to-pay marks ...<br>
sine the adverts flow the opposite direction from the
traffic they don't add to congestion - indeed on many
links (e.g. Adsl) there's plenty of capacity that way
anyway<br>
<br>
that way, the net is free at the network layer, not just
uo in the clouds<br>
what say?<br>
</div>
<div class="im">I see a bright new decongested future, full
of IP banner ads<br>
<br>
</div>
j.<br>
<div class="im">On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Fred Baker
(fred) <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fred@cisco.com">fred@cisco.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sep 18, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
> Lets put the economics aside for a moment. I am more
thinking like if<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> we can assign a class of IP addresses, where
essential government<br>
<br>
</div>
> services run, and lets say if the intermediate network
devices are<br>
<br>
> configured (within the network operators) to recognise
that these IP<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> addresses can be allowed to access without the
client/user to pay,<br>
<br>
</div>
> then the network operators can always allow access to
these services.<br>
<br>
> So are there any technological challenges here to
realize this? I dont<br>
<br>
> think so.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There's no technical challenge there. It's a business
problem. Allocate some addresses from the existing pool and
use them for a defined service such as you're describing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
What happens next, of course, is that since bandwidth costs
money and no money is being exchanged, one gets no
bandwidth. You've had the experience in hotels, no doubt;
they offer free wifi in every room, by which they mean they
have installed wifi APs on a LAN and connected that to some
service provider. It works just fine as long as you send no
packets on it. If you decide to send packets, oh, well gee.
20% loss is not a problem, is it? It's better than losing
ALL of the packets, and after all it's free...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
TANSTAAFL...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>