jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| Simple solution..
All ISP's and network connection providers MUST allow all "packets" to pass unencumbered, period.
With the exception of "load balancing" schemes that keep any one user(s) from monopolising the available bandwidth, they should NOT be allowed to "tune" any connection or "traffic" over another "users".
They also must be held accountable that the bandwidth that they "advertise" and sell to a "usr" must actually exist, so to speak, and not be "theoretical" at best, if they can't or won't deliver that amount of bandwidth then they must be forced to list what actually can be used, no more "upto" games...
If the "Packet" comes from Microsoft or "Joe Blow" down the street, they should be forced to give both equal priority on the network.
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| I agree... if they (ISP) can not or do not wish to handle the traffic, then they can
a) Impose a 'capped' service, in which you can only use so much data / day or month and be throttled afterwards
b) Lower the traffic rate (i.e. don't sell a 50Mbps/5Mbps pipe when you don't want users using more than 5Mbps/512kbps).
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| reply to jwersan
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's complete fantasy to think it's even remotely feasible to guarantee or dedicate bandwidth in a broadband topology. No one -- and I mean no one -- supplies bandwidth at a 1:1 ratio (one unit of supply for every unit sold). That goes for data, phone lines, you name it.
This marks one of the first times I've actually agreed with something the FCC has kicked around. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traffic shaping (not traffic BLOCKING mind you), as long as the parameters of the shaping are clearly posted for customers to review.
On a side note, it's been many months since I've bothered to read the comments on traffic shaping articles here on DSLR, and it's not surprising to come back and find that nothing has changed; misinformation and unqualified posts are still rampant.
Rock and roll.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jwersan
said by jwersan  :They also must be held accountable that the bandwidth that they "advertise" and sell to a "usr" must actually exist, so to speak, and not be "theoretical" at best, if they can't or won't deliver that amount of bandwidth then they must be forced to list what actually can be used, no more "upto" games... Not germane to the topic of this thread, but your suggestion simply will not happen....unless you want to see significant cost increases for consumers. I'm more than happy paying $45 for my "up to" 10/1 mbps connection...at least much more so than paying $400 for a "guaranteed" 256/256 kbps connection. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to Done_Posting
said by Done_Posting : In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traffic shaping (not traffic BLOCKING mind you), What's the difference? Shaping/blocking are interchangeable used in the context of Comcrap's practices they've been busted for. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH | I agree. Forging packets in order to break a flow instead of simply downgrading the offending protocol's QoS is unethical and flat out wrong.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| said by Done_Posting :I agree. Forging packets in order to break a flow instead of simply downgrading the offending protocol's QoS is unethical and flat out wrong. - Tate Neither should happen, both have a valid purpose on the network, while one may be "more desirable" so to speak, they should not be allowed to differentiate one packet from the next.
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| said by jwersan :Neither should happen, both have a valid purpose on the network, while one may be "more desirable" so to speak, they should not be allowed to differentiate one packet from the next. Oh, okay. So providers should allow P2P to freely consume their entire infrastructure in order to make sure they're not discriminating between protocols and upsetting a very minute section of their customer base. Good call. Make sure you let me know how that works out for you when you try to use VoIP, gaming, or any other latency critical applications on your ISP's unshaped / free-for-all network.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jwersan
Wrong. QoS is the future and to say otherwise is misguided or misinformed. There are some protocols that simply don't require the timeliness that others do. I don't care if some of the packets in my Linux distro are delayed a few seconds during a 2 GB download, but I sure do want my DNS queries, VoIP traffic, and shell/terminal applications to be responsive. Why would you not want to have QoS on a network? |
|
jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
2 edits | said by openbox9 :Wrong. QoS is the future and to say otherwise is misguided or misinformed. There are some protocols that simply don't require the timeliness that others do. I don't care if some of the packets in my Linux distro are delayed a few seconds during a 2 GB download, but I sure do want my DNS queries, VoIP traffic, and shell/terminal applications to be responsive. Why would you not want to have QoS on a network? I have no issue with certain high priority protocols being give priority over others, DNS and such.
But that was not what he was arguing, he was stating that P2P, considered by some to undesirable, should be relegated to the network dungeon, so to speak, and I disagreed with that thinking.
Using his logic, packets from Microsoft should ride the network "fast lane" since I like microsoft, and your vacation pictures you are sending to grandma, should be sent via local streets, so to speak.
Your pictures are just as desirable to you as my P2P transfer to my coworkers is to me, as such, both should be treated the same on the network.
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Wrong. QoS is the future and to say otherwise is misguided or misinformed. There are some protocols that simply don't require the timeliness that others do. I don't care if some of the packets in my Linux distro are delayed a few seconds during a 2 GB download, but I sure do want my DNS queries, VoIP traffic, and shell/terminal applications to be responsive. Why would you not want to have QoS on a network? The problem is that QoS stops at the interconnect at the peering point with other networks. So long as you are using IPv4 not IPv6 there is NO end-to-end QoS. Only when the traffic flows over and stays on the ISP's own network can the ISP supply QoS. As soon as the packet ends up on another network (or while it is on another network on its way to the ISP's network) the ISP has no ability to do any QoS. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | That's the nature of the internet...interconnected networks. I don't see it as a problem, just another variable in the puzzle. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jwersan
said by jwersan :But that was not what he was arguing, he was stating that P2P, considered by some to undesirable, should be relegated to the network dungeon, so to speak, and I disagreed with that thinking. Tater didn't say that that P2P is consider undesirable or that it should be relegated to the network dungeon. Tater merely stated that network admins should manage their networks and not allow some detrimental protocols run unchecked. P2P applications have their place on the Internet, they just need some active management to play nice with the ecosystem.said by jwersan :Using his logic, packets from Microsoft should ride the network "fast lane" since I like microsoft, and your vacation pictures you are sending to grandma, should be sent via local streets, so to speak. Are you reading the same posts that I am? Because that's not what Tater said at all. |
|
jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| said by openbox9 :said by jwersan :Using his logic, packets from Microsoft should ride the network "fast lane" since I like microsoft, and your vacation pictures you are sending to grandma, should be sent via local streets, so to speak. Are you reading the same posts that I am? Because that's not what Tater said at all. I took his distaste for P2P from this line..
Forging packets in order to break a flow instead of simply downgrading the offending protocol's QoS is unethical and flat out wrong.
Who's to determine what is considered an "offending protocol", and what is not then?
I am making the assumption that he considers P2P to be such an "offending" protocol...
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Tater is saying that what Comcast is allegedly doing is wrong and that they should be shaping traffic not forging packets. That statement actually defends what Comcast users are saying about P2P and doesn't say anything about his/her P2P distaste. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| 
My newest license plate |
said by openbox9 :Tater is saying that what Comcast is allegedly doing is wrong and that they should be shaping traffic not forging packets. That statement actually defends what Comcast users are saying about P2P and doesn't say anything about his/her P2P distaste. Thank you Openbox9. It's nice to know that there are others here who have more than a rudimentary understanding of networking. You interpreted my postings exactly as I had intended them. The usage of the term "offending" in the context above was meant to differentiate the protocol being discussed (in this case P2P) from other non-P2P traffic. You also hit the nail on the head regarding Comcast. I absolutely despise their decision to hijack flows (hence the statement about it being unethical). Comcast should be de-prioritizing P2P, not breaking it.
For the record, I am not against P2P (see photo of my current license plate above).
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| reply to Done_Posting
said by Done_Posting :said by jwersan :Neither should happen, both have a valid purpose on the network, while one may be "more desirable" so to speak, they should not be allowed to differentiate one packet from the next. Oh, okay. So cable providers should allow P2P to freely consume their entire infrastructure in order to make sure they're not discriminating between protocols and upsetting a very minute section of their customer base. Good call. Make sure you let me know how that works out for you when you try to use VoIP, gaming, or any other latency critical applications on your ISP's unshaped / free-for-all network. - Tate Fixed that for you in bold, since cable providers are the only ones that currently have a problem with p2p.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| I started to type an argument against what you said, but after thinking about it rationally, I'll concede that current DOCSIS networks are more susceptible to P2P saturation than their telco equivalent.
However... just because I agree with the statement that current DOCSIS networks are more likely to have a problem with P2P doesn't mean I'm saying that telco offerings are immune. Even 2.4 Gbps GPON FiOS on a 32 or 64-way split can be saturated with P2P traffic under the right circumstances.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to Done_Posting
said by Done_Posting :On a side note, it's been many months since I've bothered to read the comments on traffic shaping articles here on DSLR, and it's not surprising to come back and find that nothing has changed; misinformation and unqualified posts are still rampant. I've learned a lot more from being wrong on BBR than I have from being right. As long as someone is willing to have an open mind, people posting and defending their good faith beliefs shouldn't bother anyone.
The people @ BBR were excellent about that 4+ years ago -- lately I feel like half of these guys are regurgitating someone else's talking points and they don't believe them themselves!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| reply to jwersan
said by jwersan :Who's to determine what is considered an "offending protocol", and what is not then? I am making the assumption that he considers P2P to be such an "offending" protocol... The ISP is. It's their job to tailor their product / service so as to be the best fit for the greatest number of people possible. In my opinion, it's also their responsibility to disclose the basis of their QoS rules so the consumer can avoid their service if they find it doesn't suit their needs.
Disclosure = informed customers = happy customers. Simple.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
