openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to tiger72
Re: Though...
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
| 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
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to patcat88
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. |
|
