LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to patcat88
Re: Though...
said by patcat88  :All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic. From what I understand, they aren't eliminating it. The resets just delay it. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to factchecker
quote:
VoIP -> Gaming Packets -> VPN -> ssh-> HTTP/SMTP -> FTP inbound -> "Other" (IM/videochat/VNC/etc)-> NNTP -> P2P.
Some additions(and I'm not a big online gamer by any stretch). |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to tiger72
All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :VoIP -> VPN -> HTTP/ SMTP -> FTP inbound -> NNTP -> P2P. Tweaked it for you... Basically you have your most important, time sensitive apps at the top and the less sensitive traffic at the bottom.
If providers would do that across the board, without charging anyone extra (ie charging Vonage, etc. more for that higher QoS), I'd have no problems with it, so long as the providers realize that QoS only saves you for only so long before you have to upgrade. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to tiger72
I agree. QoS is the future to keep a majority of customers happy. Of course the P2P users won't like it, but a majority of people would be happy that they're now able to surf, read e-mail, and upload their photos to Walmart without a problem.
If I were king for a day, I'd look at the most used services/protocols and then weight them higher. I'd also look at the most resource consuming services/protocols and weight them with the lowest priority. There may be a few services/protocols here and there outside of the basic model, but you can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :You can always throw in QoS and weight the high bandwidth/large number of connections apps (i.e. P2P apps) at the bottom and let everything flow freely. That way you aren't shaped, bill-per-byte isn't needed as much, and everyone will be happy...except for the hogs that want to download the Internet via their P2P app and their "unlimited" residential connection. P2P apps would be able to roam freely during non-peak usage times such as early morning through midday. If TWC and Comcast did that, i'd be just fine. HTTP, -> FTP inbound -> SMTP -> NNTP -> P2P. The current Comcast forged packet stuff is indeed unnecessary when they could just use simple QoS rules...
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to tiger72
You can always throw in QoS and weight the high bandwidth/large number of connections apps (i.e. P2P apps) at the bottom and let everything flow freely. That way you aren't shaped, bill-per-byte isn't needed as much, and everyone will be happy...except for the hogs that want to download the Internet via their P2P app and their "unlimited" residential connection. P2P apps would be able to roam freely during non-peak usage times such as early morning through midday. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to zed260
said by zed260 :i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping If you're not consuming a lot of bandwidth, you likely won't be traffic-shaped.
I would support a mix of the two: traffic-shapping AFTER a user meets a certain level of monthly transfers (~100GB). This solves high-usage BT clients which are the major source of their network problems.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to Jonbo298
said by Jonbo298 :I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping. Reluctantly, I have to agree. I don't want to go back to the early to mid 90's where I had to constantly worry about how much I was on the internet. After a few months of running up bills in excess of $100, I found a rare-at-the-time flat-rate provider.
Funny thing, a few months after that, a telemarketer called me trying to sell me internet service at the low cost of "only" $x/hour. When I told him I was already getting unlimited usage for $19/month, he seemed shocked. I don't think he even knew such a thing existed. It's always funny listening to them stammer and try to "save" the call, before finally realizing they have nothing to sell you.  |
|
zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | reply to Jonbo298
i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping |
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
| I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping. But thats why I'm hoping the Telco's don't flock to one of these "ideas".
If it becomes more of an issue, the next thing after Bittorrent will arrive and then a new battle will wage at some point. |
|
