[LINK] RFC: "No End User Servers" Policies are brain dead
Thu Nov 28 08:17:58 EST 2002
On 28/11/02 5:30 PM, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 6. QoS - if an end user server becomes popular it will overload the link
> My view: I don't really understand this argument. It is only relevant for
> the difference between end user hosting (at a terminating node) and carrier
> hosting (at a more central node). So congestion on links to and from the
> central nodes is not relevant, it's only on the last mile node or nodes.
> The people accessing the server will get a poor response. I don't
> understand why this has an impact on others (traffic from page requests is
> unlikely to saturate the last mile downstream capacity?).
Ahhh ... yes, the congestion will be throttled to the narrowest link, which
is the last mile to the server. and since that link would be much smaller
than the ISP's main link the congestion won't really be felt by the other
paying subscribers. Unless it is massively severe, in which case it's like a
DOS attack of SYN (?) packets.
Point taken, reason #6 withdrawn.
Well, with one proviso ... there is a sub-case: cable modem users, and
similar community-shared-bandwidth connections (WiFi?), where if my
neighbour swamps his connection it directly impacts on my available
More information about the Link