Infreemation infreemation

The “best effort” internet is the only internet “最大努力”互聯網是唯一的Internet

Yoda said “Do, or do not.尤達說： “這樣做，或者說沒有。 There is no ‘try.’” He didn’t run a site on the internet, which is and always will be a “best effort network” with no guarantees of availability and performance. 有沒有'嘗試 ' 。 “他並沒有運行一個網站在互聯網上，這是始終將是一個”盡力網“沒有保證，可用性和性能。 It is up to the customer to optimize these aspects the best they can for their budget.這是給客戶的優化這方面的最好的，他們可以為他們的財政預算案。 I, Cringely我cringely posts a great article職位一個偉大的文章 on the struggle for關於鬥爭 network neutrality網絡中立性 - effectively the control of the internet, which is a big battleground in the fight for freedom of information. -有效地控制互聯網，這是一個大戰場，在爭取自由的信息。 This battle has been heating up with politicians, service providers and network vendors pushing for stricter control over service delivery allowing a form of favoritism called prioritization (a technique developed for private networks) to be implemented on the public internet.這一仗不斷升溫，與政界人士，服務供應商和網絡供應商的推動更嚴格地控制提供服務，允許某種形式的徇私舞弊所謂的優先次序（一技術的發展為私人網絡）即將實施的對公共互聯網。

I asked Bob Kahn, the father of TCP/IP, and he made the point that the Internet is a Best Effort network and if you change that, well, you no longer have the Internet.我問鮑勃卡恩，父親的TCP / IP ，而且他所作的一點，就是互聯網是一個最好的努力，網絡和如果您改變這種狀況，那麼，您不再有互聯網。

Why is nobody –- NOBODY -– mentioning Moore’s Law in this discussion?為什麼沒有人-沒有人-一提的穆爾定律在這討論呢？ The Internet is today 1,000 times the size it was in 1996, yet these discussions tend to view network growth as static.互聯網是今天的1000倍的大小，它是在1996年，但這些討論往往以查看網絡的增長，作為靜態的。

The real question is whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 even needs re-writing and that comes down to something Congress probably doesn’t want to consider –- that they aren’t all-powerful after all.真正的問題是，是否有電信法的1996年，甚至需要重新編寫，並歸結為一些國會可能並不想考慮-他們是不是所有的強大畢竟。 The Internet has grown beyond Congress’ ability to control it.互聯網已經成長超出了國會的控制能力。 So they can bow to special interests, change the law, and ultimately prove their own impotence.使他們能夠低頭的特殊利益，改變法律，並最終證明自己的陽痿。 Or they can do nothing and fight again another day.或者他們可以什麼也不做，爭取又一個天。

I think his point about the dymanic nature of the internet is excellent.我覺得他一點的動態互聯網的性質是非常好的。 Do we really need to address current performance problems when cheap 10GE is here and 100GE around the corner?我們真的需要，以解決目前的性能問題時，廉價的10ge是在這裡和100ge周圍的角落？ How do you control such a complex, dynamic system for any appreciable length of time before it adapts to your controls?你怎麼控制這樣一個複雜的，動態系統的任何值得稱讚的時間長度之前，它可以適應您的管制？ Obviously you would need to create rules (policies) for what actions are permitted, which ones are favored over others, a process which is mainly and rightly left up to the network security professionals working for end users (and increasingly home users).顯然，您將需要創建規則（政策）什麼行動，允許，哪些是最惠國待遇，超過其他人，一個過程，這主要是正確的左最多的網絡安全工作的專業人士為最終用戶（和越來越多的家庭用戶） 。 The current internet basically leaves it up to the end users to create and manage their own policies, with some exceptions (typically laws related to harming others) which are built into the acceptable use policies of ISPs.目前互聯網基本上葉片，它到去年底，用戶可以創建和管理他們自己的政策，與一些例外情況（通常是相關法律傷害他人） ，這是建成可接受使用政策的互聯網服務供應商。 Basically it is an “enduser beware” system offering enormous flexibility and unprecendented access to services and information.基本上這是一個“ enduser提防”系統提供了巨大的靈活性和前所未有的獲得服務和信息。

Increasingly, policy makers and ISPs are realizing how powerful they could be if they managed to enforce additional policies related to, for example, voice traffic or file sharing.越來越多的決策者和互聯網服務供應商是實現多麼強大，他們可以，如果他們的管理，以執行額外的相關政策，例如，語音流量或文件共享。 Unfortunately the historically network neutral network vendors (such as Cisco, Juniper etc) are realizing they can help create a new market for far more complicated network devices which can play a part in a tightly regulated and commericalized internet.很可惜，歷史上網絡中立的網絡供應商（如思科， Juniper的等）實現，他們可以幫助建立一個新的市場，到目前為止，更複雜的網絡設備，其中可以發揮的一部分，在一個嚴格管制和commericalized互聯網。 It used to be if you needed to enforce policies you turned to security vendors, but now all the big network companies have bought security companies and of course they are trying to move up the value stack since network equipment is effectively commoditized.它曾經是如果您需要執行的政策，你轉向安全廠商，但現在所有大的網絡公司買了保安公司，而且當然他們正試圖走高增值路線棧以來，網絡設備是有效的商品化。 Routers and switches are dirt cheap and there is no margin to be made in this segment.路由器和交換機是污垢的廉價和有沒有保證金，以取得在這一部分。

So to come back to the question at hand: what do we get when ISPs start controlling our use of applications (they’re already started by the way - blocking certain ports and rate limiting P2P traffic) and start to favour their own applications (or their partners’ applications) over the ones you really want to run?所以回來的問題，一方面：我們究竟得到時，互聯網服務供應商開始控制我們的使用申請（他們現在已經開始的方式-阻止某些港口和速率限制P 2P流量） ，並開始向有利於他們自己的應用程序（或他們的合作夥伴申請）超過自己，你真的要運行的？ Well the problem comes down to choice.好問題，歸結為選擇。 If I have a choice about what network to be on and the extent to which I will be regulated that might be ok.如果我有一個選擇什麼網絡，可於以及在何種程度上，我會加以規管可能確定。 But partial control is not what the stakeholders are envisioning.但局部控制，是不是什麼利益相關者的構想。
This is a political play by lobby groups and a profit motivated move by network vendors and telecom.這是一個政治發揮遊說團體和利潤動機的舉動，網絡供應商和電信。 It is contrary to the philosophy in which the internet was invented and grew.這是相反的哲學，在這互聯網的發明和成長。 It is a play for power and control.這是一個發揮的權力和控制。 My message to them: stop taking the internet for granted: the public, taxpayer-funded standards-guided internet that allowed you to make a fortune in the first place is being jeopardized and could fragment into a collection of private networks.我的郵件給他們：停止服用，互聯網是理所當然的：市民，納稅人資助的標準，引導互聯網，讓您作出財富擺在首位，是受到損害，並可能分裂成收集私人網絡。 If too much control and regulation appears on our internet, a new public internet will emerge from the ashes of the original and it won’t use any of your name brand equipment.如果太多的控制和規管出現在我們的互聯網，一個新的公共互聯網將會出現從廢墟中的原意和它不會使用您的任何名牌的設備。