espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to funchords
Re: ISPs can't win!
said by funchords  :Most members of the "3rd-party VOIP crowd" supports Network Neutrality. In fact, Comcast has announced a special collaboration with Vonage to ensure that its "protocol agnostic" solution doesn't affect Vonage. Comcast wouldn't have to do that if it behaved according to Internet Standards. There are no standards that define the policies and criteria for how traffic must be differentially queued, only descriptions of the mechanics and theories about how such goals can be achieved. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by espaeth :There are no standards that define the policies and criteria for how traffic must be differentially queued, only descriptions of the mechanics and theories about how such goals can be achieved. That's right, and that's on purpose. The IETF seems to have structured this so that the end host should have the purview to set the handling instructions and that the network operator has the purview to decide whether and how to follow them.
That solves a number of problems, but it also creates a few in the application to Internet users that are increasingly non-technical in nature and many, many network programs that don't use DSCP since nobody has really done this on a residential network before.
I personally don't mind using opt-in DPI as a substitute for this gap. The DPI device could then mark the DSCPs according to signature, but do so acting on behalf of the end-user. I think that would solve a lot of problems that users are currently struggling with and it would help the ISP, too. Having it opt-in would hopefully drive the ISPs to act more honestly about what it does and it would require the user to actually be informed (versus some buried text in a TOS somewhere). Most users would want to turn this on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| What's wrong with delaying non time-sensitive packets so time-sensitive packets can get to the next hop on a a timely basis during times of network congestion? Most people, myself included, aren't likely to notice an extra 100ms on an HTTP session. But that sort of jitter can severely degrade VoIP or online gaming. Inspecting each packet and classifying it by application type is one method ISPs can use to configure their systems to reduce the likelihood that time sensitive packets will suffer on account of network congestion. Application layer QoS really does make a lot of sense, even if existing standards don't spell out the details of a DPI-based traffic prioritization regime on the ISP level. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | said by jaminus :What's wrong with delaying non time-sensitive packets so time-sensitive packets can get to the next hop on a a timely basis during times of network congestion? Nothing.
said by jaminus :Inspecting each packet and classifying it by application type is one method ISPs can use to configure their systems to reduce the likelihood that time sensitive packets will suffer on account of network congestion. Except they can't always know whether a use is real-time or not. Identical algorithms in BitTorrent not only supports background file transfers, but it also supports real-time streaming. DPI equipment can only guess as to what it is.
said by jaminus : Application layer QoS really does make a lot of sense, even if existing standards don't spell out the details of a DPI-based traffic prioritization regime on the ISP level. It seems to be "the new black" but none of these many network vendor companies have made their case to the satisfaction of the IETF.
That said, I'm not against it myself -- but until it's Internet Standard, it needs to be done on an opt-in basis.
Secondly, it can't be an alternative to growing your network capacity as fast as you normally ought to -- and that's really what's behind this. For every dollar spent on DPI, ISPs are told that they'll save $10 on network upgrades. Now don't step in the marketing, but if that's even partially true, it's a Pandora's box leading to death by congestion.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
