On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 15:16 +1300, John S Russell wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Jamie Baddeley wrote:
I guess the need to dimension the network and manage how that is used is a fair need. But 148:1 or xxx:1 or whatever it actually is, is the point worth pressing.
On the Internet, everyone is a customer. Perhaps a standard needs to be agreed?
And UltraGlobalOmniISP may require Quantum Teleported Infinite Improbability Modules to provide connectivity for their vast userbase.
Ahh, that's what that package was the other day...and we thought it was part of a lego set :-)
So yeah, there's no need to regulate this back-end contention ratio stuff, the market would sort it out ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
Agreed, my point was that take advantage of the aforementioned playing field, it'd pay to agree on some rules/standards first. Should a ref be necessary, he or she'd need to know when to cry foul...(he said analogously) At some point I'd imagine we'll need to collectively agree on what fair and level/balanced is. Some agreement at an industry level would be a good idea. Has NZ ever had of local form of this? http://www.ops.ietf.org/ I can't recall, though I remember a few smart cookies doing NZ sourced rfc-drafts back in the late 20th century. One other question I'd have is what is the best vehicle (figuratively speaking) to get those local standards applied?
The position we're in here is that the market CANNOT sort it out, at least on a macro scale.
No arguments from me here my friend. Maybe we're just talking about the mother of all service level agreements - but one that can be measured, and is practical and has penalties (i.e just like the game you refer to above). cheers jamie