[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
At 08:04 PM 1/27/2009, Jack Haverty wrote:
>Also, hardware was severely limited. I remember one router, connecting
>ArpaNet and Satnet, which at one point had only enough memory to buffer
>exactly ONE packet. So there wasn't much question of how to handle
>priority in the "queue".
this point deserves particular emphasis.
while i didn't know your gateways were that minimal, i was keenly
aware of the hardware limitations of the 'fuzzball' [and it might be
nice if dave gave a rundown on just what the fuzzballs were for the
benefit of newcomers ... and oldtimers who've forgotten], and any
analogy between them and contemporary 'ISPs' must founder on
precisely that point: today's hardware is so much more capable than
'yesterday's' that any attempt to reason by analogy to what used to
be licit is, i submit, a flagrantly false analogy.
in a sense, if you've got enough processing power, to say nothing of
buffering, to be able to play nasty favoritism games with traffic in
the first place, as you do nowadays, you can't use what used to be
done in response to severe limitations on both processing power and
buffering as an excuse for playing said nasty favoritism games. [in
my humble but dogmatic opinion, of course.]
not that i think the original question was intended to imply a
connection between way back when and now, just that i'd like to try
to head off any of the apparently unscrupulous big-money bit-pushers
who want to play nasty favoritism games from inferring such a connection....
[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and
create a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly
customary e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing
for a long time now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't
know ... and who's further broken down and done
http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html , rather grudgingly]