North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Napster and others...
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 09:45:08AM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > | What would be your suggestions on making Napster a more network > | friendly app? > > 1. RFC 2001 compliance. > Keep it TCP. Agreed - I don't know of anything we would want to do that would break that stuff. > 2. Although RFC 1349 is supposedly dead and the TOS octet in the > RFC 791 scheme is dead too[*], it is at least good politics to > set a low TOS value on the bulk transfer traffic. (If not on all traffic). > Thus, routers configured to do TOS-based fancy queueing will DTRT and > fewer people will accuse Napster of being a resource pig. I believe there was some discussion about doing that, actually, although I don't know where it went (as I just do system admin stuff, not development stuff). I'll have to inquire as I haven't heard anything about it recently. Of course, the real impact would be pretty limited since I don't know that most peoples' routers really look to that header for QoS. Nevertheless... > 3. "If we aren't network friendly, please let us know what will make > us more network friendly" is a great attitude to demonstrate. Hopefully > this will be appreciated by actual operators (at least the ones who > don't pay per-packet/per-byte charges). Yeah, definately we aren't trying to make peoples' lives/budgets/latencies harder than they need to be. The trick is in figuring out how much headache is the nature of the beast, how much we can help alleviate, and what the realistic compromise is. Of course, I can only make suggestions to management, but I know that everyone here is very aware of the real life issues for the NANOG type community, and also very interested in doing what can reasonably be done. > Sean. > > [*] RFC 2474/RFC 2475 but don't hold your breath -:) > Who implements this could be a NANOG topic. -:) -:) -- Michael Ridley <[email protected]>