wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Why all of the lying? This is the crux of network neutrality. You do NOT have to degrade traffic at all. Merely give priority for certain applications. Notice I did not say certain companies applications???
What's most important, and where Comcast screwed up, is no to lie about what you are doing. I don't believe that corporations have rights to privacy when they are providing services. They should be transparent in what they do.
cw |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by wentlanc:You do NOT have to degrade traffic at all. Merely give priority for certain applications. Notice I did not say certain companies applications??? On the Internet, all traffic moves as fast as possible. You can't make traffic move faster, so to give priority to "set of packets X" you actually have to let it jump ahead in any queue, which has the effect of slowing down the remaining traffic.
That's still not necessarily a bad thing, and it's allowed by Internet Standards. (See my comment above to telcolackey.)
None of this means anything in a network that is not congested for a long period of time. Such prioritization only happens during congestion. The best solution is to not be congested in the first place.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Absolutely, and I fully understand that. There is a vast difference in prioritization of traffic during periods of congestion, and degradation of traffic, which occurs all of the time.
cw |
|
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords:None of this means anything in a network that is not congested for a long period of time. Such prioritization only happens during congestion. The best solution is to not be congested in the first place. On average it is best to not be congested. But a network isn't just averages. Congestion occurs at different times and in different parts of the network and for varying lengths of time.
A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. And if that means the darlings of the internet(P2P fans) have to be slowed down so that VOIP traffic and HTTP traffic is prioritized ahead of P2P and FTP, so be it.
But the most radical interpretations of Network Neutrality claim that ISPs have no right to do this. And they then start citing standards bodies that have nothing to do with the need for networks to impose QOS standards. As if their right to an uncongested network is god-given(see »/forum/r20979027- ) and any attempts to manage a congested network is the devil's work.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
|
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | said by fAcEtIOUs:On average it is best to not be congested. But a network isn't just averages. Congestion occurs at different times and in different parts of the network and for varying lengths of time. And if the provider encounters congestion on a node for longer periods of time, they should take appropriate steps to increase capacity to the node to alleviate the congestion.
said by fAcEtIOUs:A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. And if that means the darlings of the internet(P2P fans) have to be slowed down so that VOIP traffic and HTTP traffic is prioritized ahead of P2P and FTP, so be it. Prioritization should ONLY be used in times of congestion. Otherwise it is deliberate degradation of traffic. And competing brands MUST NOT be discriminated against. Which means ALL VOIP gets the same treatment, not just the ISP's brand.
said by fAcEtIOUs:But the most radical interpretations of Network Neutrality claim that ISPs have no right to do this. And they then start citing standards bodies that have nothing to do with the need for networks to impose QOS standards. As if their right to an uncongested network is god-given(see » /forum/r20979027- ) and any attempts to manage a congested network is the devil's work. People tend to have issues when traffic discrimination is being used to over-broadly degrade service in the guise of network management. People have even greater issues when the companies doing so LIE about it. When the management of the network is so clearly an attempt to collect revenue, or degrade legitimate services, people WILL tend to complain.
cw |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. I'm sorry, TK, but that's simply a widely-believed idea that history shows is not true. Internet Service Providers have generally lacked this capability throughout most of the life span of the Internet. While this DPI capability existed in enterprise and private networks, it's only in the last 6-7 years that it started to appear at all on the Internet and it's only been a real "gold-rush" feature for ISP network vendors for the last 2-3 years.
So for 20-23 years or so of the Internet's life, network providers serving the public did just fine without DPI-driven QOS.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | [Removing DPI from the discussion for a minute] I disagree that the Internet is the same in the past 3 years as it has been in the last 20 and everything will be just fine if we follow historical ways of doing business. There have been more speed increases in the past 3 years than there have been in the history of the Internet.
Those that believe that speeds can continue to increase at this rate without any form of business change are not thinking this through or have an agenda.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by funchords:None of this means anything in a network that is not congested for a long period of time. Such prioritization only happens during congestion. The best solution is to not be congested in the first place. On average it is best to not be congested. But a network isn't just averages. Congestion occurs at different times and in different parts of the network and for varying lengths of time. A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. And if that means the darlings of the internet(P2P fans) have to be slowed down so that VOIP traffic and HTTP traffic is prioritized ahead of P2P and FTP, so be it. So if network congestion only happens at certain times, why do they QOS ALL the time?  |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:While this DPI capability existed in enterprise and private networks, it's only in the last 6-7 years that it started to appear at all on the Internet and it's only been a real "gold-rush" feature for ISP network vendors for the last 2-3 years. So for 20-23 years or so of the Internet's life, network providers serving the public did just fine without DPI-driven QOS. The applications that are causing the biggest concern today also didn't exist for the first part of the life of the Internet. QoS has evolved over time to match the growing breadth and complexity of applications running over the Internet. What started as simple FIFO queuing got implemented as fair-queuing when FTP sessions first started tromping all over telnet and gopher traffic. Fair-queuing was later improved as weighted fair-queuing because dividing data rate equally among flows didn't always work so great because not all flows needed the same data rate.
The Internet didn't start fully baked, and it's still not finished. Applications are continually be developed, and network management practices are constantly evolving to follow. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. And if that means the darlings of the internet(P2P fans) have to be slowed down so that VOIP traffic and HTTP traffic is prioritized ahead of P2P and FTP, so be it. There is FAR more illegal material transferred via HTTP than FTP. Why not just be honest and admit you want P2P and FTP de-prioritized because you don't use them?
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:The Internet didn't start fully baked, and it's still not finished. Applications are continually be developed, and network management practices are constantly evolving to follow. We disagree in places and that's fine -- but things that affect how the core protocols of the Internet works ought to go through the process and reach Internet Standard (or at least Draft Standard) before appearing on the global networks.
The process cannot be hijacked.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:The process cannot be hijacked. The process is hijacked all the time. If we had to depend on agreement by committee for every single technology development we would have a significantly smaller set of applications and protocols today.
Someone invents something, and standards are developed around it. Very rarely does it work the other way around. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | And people disagreeing with a practice is part of the process too. It is ok to disagree, and to substantiate your disagreement. That's why we are here talking about it. Companies like Comcast, who operate in private, and then lie about what they are doing, don't act as though they want anyone to know about their methods, which is why they caught so much heat.
cw |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by funchords:None of this means anything in a network that is not congested for a long period of time. Such prioritization only happens during congestion. The best solution is to not be congested in the first place. On average it is best to not be congested. But a network isn't just averages. Congestion occurs at different times and in different parts of the network and for varying lengths of time. A network provider has to have mechanisms in place(QOS) to prioritize when necessary. And if that means the darlings of the internet(P2P fans) have to be slowed down so that VOIP traffic and HTTP traffic is prioritized ahead of P2P and FTP, so be it. But the most radical interpretations of Network Neutrality claim that ISPs have no right to do this. And they then start citing standards bodies that have nothing to do with the need for networks to impose QOS standards. As if their right to an uncongested network is god-given(see » /forum/r20979027- ) and any attempts to manage a congested network is the devil's work. with ISPs like cable in the phone business i could see non cableco VOIP(ie vonage type) being ranked below even P2P in QOS routing.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:If we had to depend on agreement by committee for every single technology development You know that's not what I said.
We're talking about existing standards, not completely new ones. I'm talking about Layers 2/3 and perhaps 4, not layer 7.
And as to the end result being fewer protocols and products -- I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. We spend quite a bit of time reinventing the wheel, and there are certain products that never should have (secretly) hit the market in the first place.
Part of the problem is that nobody goes around in a 3-piece suit taking out ISP executives for 3-martini lunches trying to convince them to use a free 10-year-old Internet Standard. No, instead they're wined-and-dined by hardware vendors with new "solutions" that somehow perfectly fits all of their problems.
Bah.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:We're talking about existing standards, not completely new ones. I'm talking about Layers 2/3 and perhaps 4, not layer 7. There's been significant revision over the years at all layers. TCP window scaling still breaks applications today. Hell, there are still some boxes out there that only support classful IP network assignment!
said by funchords:Part of the problem is that nobody goes around in a 3-piece suit taking out ISP executives for 3-martini lunches trying to convince them to use a free 10-year-old Internet Standard. No, instead they're wined-and-dined by hardware vendors with new "solutions" that somehow perfectly fits all of their problems. It doesn't quite work that way. It's ridiculously difficult to a get a new product in the door for large companies, mostly because there are approved vendor lists that define where you can puchase products through. These companies are vetted to make sure that it's not run by family of anyone in the company and that the company is above board. Where I work (heathcare, not ISP-land) when we changed load balancer vendors it was a 5 month approval process before we could cut our first PO. Nobody is going to go through that amount of bureaucratic pain unless they think a product has something they really need. |
|
MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by espaeth:It doesn't quite work that way. It's ridiculously difficult to a get a new product in the door for large companies, NebuAd and Sandvine didn't seem to have too much trouble. Or they didn't let it stop them, at least.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
"It doesn't quite work that way. It's ridiculously difficult to a get a new product in the door for large companies, mostly because there are approved vendor lists that define where you can puchase products through. These companies are vetted to make sure that it's not run by family of anyone in the company and that the company is above board. Where I work (heathcare, not ISP-land) when we changed load balancer vendors it was a 5 month approval process before we could cut our first PO. Nobody is going to go through that amount of bureaucratic pain unless they think a product has something they really need."
If you have a product that will increase profits / lower costs etc.. You will get it push thru the door, and no amount of Vendor chain of command is going to stop it.
An example of this. we had a vendor agreement with Compaq to provide all of our workstations. Long story short, Dell got the contract now. Because a rep happened to take our CTO out for a 'business dinner'.
No approval process, the switch was made within the month. |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
·Comcast
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:None of this means anything in a network that is not congested for a long period of time. Such prioritization only happens during congestion. The best solution is to not be congested in the first place. Exactly. Could you imagine if the proposed solution to a congested highway was to permit only red cars to use it on Monday, blue cars on Tuesday, white cars on Wednesday? I know everyone hates the highway analogy, but in this case it's spot on.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to MrMoody
Actually Nebuad wouldn't need a P.O. since they paid the ISPs and Sandvine had other management products in the market before this whole P2P RST-throwing mess. |
|
