-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/05/2011 10:50, John Curran wrote:
How is this different than network D deciding to build a network with with an innovative routing technology, which may serve to distinguish it in a positive (or negative) manner based on actual performance?
This is different because it introduces a new party into the equation, X, who wants to impede reachability rather than improve it, and because X has legal power to supersede E's choices and override their self-interest. In your example, A is affected by the consequences of E trying to build a better network. Maybe E gets it wrong, and A suffers as a result too, but at least E is trying to do better and is likely to correct their behaviour or will gradually decline in influence. In Martin's example A is also affected by the consequences of X forcing E to reduce the connectivity of their network. E no longer has a choice, so he cannot "correct" his behaviour. Nor will E be easily superseded by competitor networks, because all his competitors are also subject to X. This could of course happen now - and I spend a large chunk of my time working to avoid this. In my view, handing X on a plate a mechanism to direct many Es all at once will greatly increase X's propensity to intervene. Political/legal control does make a qualitative difference. - -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Maya House, 134-138 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3CdvkACgkQJiK3ugcyKhSjswCff7AGd+KvBUXZASJCK/qMmq6e jM8An0JvaSVih6nIGIp1Cf5F88rsOXna =VTdq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----