-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
/
31_cdt_-_p2pi_workshop_draft.txt
114 lines (81 loc) · 4.47 KB
/
31_cdt_-_p2pi_workshop_draft.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
P2PI Workshop David Sohn
Position Paper Alissa Cooper
Center for Democracy & Technology
May 9, 2008
Peer-to-Peer Infrastructure Considerations
Abstract
This document provides a brief overview of considerations that should
underlie any technical solutions to the congestion issues raised in
the p2pi workshop.
1. Background
The authors have actively participated in a range of public policy
discussions and proceedings relating to congestion issues to be
discussed in the p2pi workshop. We appreciate and agree that debate
about public policy concerns are generally out of scope for this
workshop.
We believe, however, that there are some public policy considerations
that could provide helpful context for the workshop. We are not at
this time seeking to present this content orally at the workshop.
The below content is drawn from much more substantial discussions
submitted to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). See
[CDT-FCC-Comments] and [CDT-FCC-Reply-Comments].
2. Even Application of Network Management Practices
Our concern and involvement in this area has centered on the risk
that certain network management tactics aimed at combating congestion
could have the detrimental side effect of vesting network operators
with a new level of "gatekeeper" control over which applications
will thrive and which will not. In recent comments filed with the
FCC, we offered several principles to guide network operators and
policymakers as they consider questions relating to network
management. One such principle is that network management practices
targeting congestion should be evenly applied.
Network management techniques may offer important tools for
addressing bandwidth constraints, but techniques that put a network
provider in the position to pick and choose among applications,
services, or protocols Ð deciding which ones will be allowed to use
how much bandwidth or which ones will be subject to limits Ð carry
serious risk. Once a network operator is in the business of
selecting particular traffic for inferior treatment, there is the
possibility of mixed motives, as choices between different tactics
could be tinged by competitive considerations. Innovators,
meanwhile, would need to start worrying about whether and how the
network operator might choose to target their applications.
These risks can be mitigated if network management techniques are
based on objective criteria and applied evenly, so that all
applications with similar bandwidth usage patterns receive similar
treatment. Alternatively, any technique that allows subscribers to
select specific applications or content for special traffic handling
should be benign; so long as the choice lies with the subscriber,
there is no risk of the network operator playing favorites.
3. Other considerations
In addition to the above consideration, we raised two other important
principles to the FCC: first, that all congestion responses should
adhere to well accepted technical standards, and second, that network
operators be transparent with regard to what responses are taken.
These points are discussed in greater detail in [CDT-FCC-Comments]
and [CDT-FCC-Reply-Comments].
At a more general level, we believe that the rhetoric in the policy
debate over congestion management techniques has often framed false
choices, as if the only question were whether to support or oppose
congestion management in the abstract. This workshop offers the
important opportunity to delve into the different technical
approaches to congestion management and to consider the differences
between them. We believe that IETF is the right place to have this
kind of technical discussion, and that this workshop and the work of
the IETF may inform the future policy debate in important ways.
4. References
[CDT-FCC-Comments]
The Center for Democracy & Technology, "Comments of the
Center for Democracy & Technology," Feb. 13, 2008, available
at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20080213_FCC_comments.pdf.
[CDT-FCC-Reply-Comments]
The Center for Democracy & Technology, "Reply Comments of the
Center for Democracy & Technology," Feb. 28, 2008, available
at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20080228_FCC_comments.pdf.
Authors' Addresses
David Sohn, [email protected]
Alissa Cooper, [email protected]
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
+1-202-637-9800