On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 3:42 PM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 3:17 PM Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > How is this different from a non-profit IX ? > > > > it sounds like the proposal is effectively (to use your example) a > "global non-profit IX". > > It sounds like the expectation is likely that: > 1) 'the core' operates globally as a neutral provider > 2) 'the core' offers 'transit' to end-networks (LMPs) at a cost > which is not ... usery > 3) all of the global areas have the same world view on 'Network Neutrality' > > It seems ... like a pretty high lift to move from today to the utopia proposed. Yeah -- the word "utopia" in this is an important one -- if we lived in a utopia, this proposal seems like it would work - "a rising tide" and all that. But, in the current (and foreseeable future) the world just doesn't work like this... Warren "Cynical" Kumari. > > > How could you prevent ISPs from purposefully ignoring the poc? > > > > Paul > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 14:50, Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Scott Shenker et al. just presented a pretty thought-provoking "public option" for the Internet's core backbone at SIGCOMM: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3387514.3405875 > > > > > > If you scroll down (or go to https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3387514..3405875#sec-supp), his recorded talk video gives a high-level overview. > > > > > > (PDF and video *should* be open access and work for me, but you never know with the ACM...) > > > > > > Lars > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
