LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for NORDNOG Archives

NORDNOG Archives

NORDNOG Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave NORDNOG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Re: IP limits from RIPE?


Carl Moberg <[log in to unmask]>


Network management discussion for Nordic region <[log in to unmask]>


Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:12:59 +0100





text/plain (1 lines)

Måns Nilsson wrote:


>- --On Wednesday, December 04, 2002 18:57:27 +0100 Carl Moberg
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> No, it's simply a question of authentication, authorization and
>>accounting (AAA). The
>> weak form of AAA used for voice over POTS may be sufficient in that
>>specific case,
>> but my bank sure still want a PIN in order to give me information on my
>>account balance.
>Which is why my bank requires me to use an in-band authentication system
>when I talk to them over IP, and do not require me to come from a specific
>IP address. For once, the banks got it right in the big picture.
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I looked, HTTP was
 encapsulated in IP on all occasions.

>You are comparing apples to oranges here, trying to defend what is b0rken
>from the beginning, because:
>The telco does not require you to dial a PIN code before you can have a
>dial tone. Ergo, the telco (cf Jakobs sadly correct analysis of the
>monopoly on DSL) should not require a PIN / login for providing IP over the
>same infrastructure -- with roughly the same possible amount of users per
>physicallly identifiable copper connection.
 I agree that my parallell was unclear and not very useful, but as I said in
 the reply to Jakob; the ISPs are looking to be service providers in
 contrast to infrastructure salesmen and administrators.

>> Well, I partly agree. Some users want a simple always on service, most
>> don't really care if they have to type their username and password,
>> not if that means that they may get cheaper access. No user wants to
>>pay for
>> the full weight of always on.
>I pay, and I would not want it any other way, except cheaper, but I would
>never give up "always on".
 You probably won't have to give up always on, but
 I suspect that you may have to pay more money for
 it in the future (at least if you're planning to buy it of
 the shelf and don't make private arrangements).

>> This whole questions is not primarily one of protocols, technology, or
>>the IETF,
>> it's a question of how to actually build and run a sound business on
>>providing services
>> using the Internet.
>And the answer to that is simple: Give people what they want, and with no
>fuss. Never force stupid useless "features" on them.
 I completely agree on this point. I'm not really sure that you
 understand what people want. My guess is that they want
 to read email and don't care whether their data is sent over
 CAT-5, barbwire or radio. More importantly they don't care
 if they have a 512 Kbps link or 100Mbps as long as they
 don't experience latency in whatever they're doing.

 "Services, not technology"

-- calle

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main NORDNOG Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager