Re: Though... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19953015 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:05:49 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:05:49 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19968250 LeftOfSanity :
said by patcat88 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19968250 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:54:22 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19958570 djrobx :
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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19958570 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:13:43 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953615 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953615 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:28:19 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953444 anon :
said by tiger72 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953444 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:59:41 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953015 openbox9 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19953015 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:41:02 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952976 tiger72 :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

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/ -|]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952976 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:34:15 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952956 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952956 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:30:30 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952896 tiger72 :
said by zed260 See Profile :

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/ -|]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952896 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:19:12 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952511 TheWickerMan :
said by Jonbo298 See Profile :

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. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952511 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:19:07 EDT Re: Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952431 zed260 : i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952431 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:06:48 EDT Though... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952401 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. 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19952401 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:01:14 EDT