[note that this post also relates to the thread Re: Comcast
blocking p2p
uploads]
While both discussions started out as operational, most of
the mail
traffic is things that are not very much related to
technology or
operations.
To clarify, things like these are on-topic:
* Whether p2p protocols are "well-behaved", and
how can we help making
them behave.
* Filtering "non-behaving" applications, whether
these are worms or p2p
applications.
* Helping p2p authors write protocols that are topology-
and
congestion-aware
These are on-topic, but all arguments for and against have
already been
made. Unless you have something new and insightful to say,
please avoid
continuing conversations about these subjects:
* ISPs should[n't] have enough capacity to accomodate any
application, no
matter how well or badly behaved
* ISPs should[n't] charge per byte
* ISPs should[n't] have bandwidth caps
* Legality of blocking and filtering
These are clearly off-topic:
* End-user comments about their particular MSO/ISP, pricing,
etc.
* Morality of blocking and filtering
As a guideline, if you can expect a presentation at nanog
conference about
something, it belongs on the list. If you can't, it doesn't.
It is a clear
distinction. In addition, keep in mind that this is the
"network
operators" mailing list, *not* the end-user mailing
list.
Marty Hannigan (MLC member) already made a post on the
"Comcast blocking
p2p uploads" asking to stick to the operational
content (vs, politics and
morality of blocking p2p application), but people still
continue to make
non-technical comments.
Accordingly, to increase signal/noise (as applied to network
operations)
MLC (that's us, the team who moderate this mailing list)
won't hesitate to
warn posters who ignore the limits set by AUP and guidance
set up by MLC.
If you want to discuss this moderation request, please do so
on
nanog-futures.
-alex [mlc chair]
|
