how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Slight clarification / correction said by fAcEtIOUs:They can quota the fastest markings (to avoid abuse) And thereby get right back in to the mess of throttling based on application &/or protocol. How do you figure? Putting a quota on a DSCP means that it reverts to default behavior if the quota is passed. The ISP never has to look at application/protocol.
said by fAcEtIOUs:Face it, you just want to have all ISPs provide unlimited bandwidth with no restrictions at all on the worst abusers of the system. It is the logical consequence of all your suggestions. Face it, you don't pay attention to what I say. If you did, you would see:
•I have consistently called for abusers to be removed -- not coddled, not warned -- removed.
•I have consistently called for ISPs to disclose what they're doing so that if it's not working, that users can get support.
•I have consistently called for standards to be followed.
As for limits, I have said two things -- users need a fair meter and limits that don't grow stunt the growth of innovation.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:How do you figure? Putting a quota on a DSCP means that it reverts to default behavior if the quota is passed. The ISP never has to look at application/protocol. Only the users that configure their applications to set DSCP values will benefit from such an implementation.
Even with per-connection quotas, it's a pretty safe assumption that a minority of end-users will have applications that will mark traffic. It's also a pretty safe bet that P2P apps will be disproportionately represented in that group. | | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by espaeth:said by funchords:How do you figure? Putting a quota on a DSCP means that it reverts to default behavior if the quota is passed. The ISP never has to look at application/protocol. Only the users that configure their applications to set DSCP values will benefit from such an implementation. Even with per-connection quotas, it's a pretty safe assumption that a minority of end-users will have applications that will mark traffic. It's also a pretty safe bet that P2P apps will be disproportionately represented in that group. As I said -- if Comcast (or AT&T) were to do it, I think the entire world would follow.
Actually, I predict the VOIP and gaming apps would be the first to rush to take advantage of such a thing, while P2P file-sharing apps themselves would either opt for best-effort or less-than-best-effort (a lower-priority bulk class, if such were made available).
I'll say that again, I don't think there is any interest among the community of P2P developers to harm the network. They know that an efficient network works better for them.
Sure -- It's predictable that hacks and mods would come out that tried to exploit faster markings, which is why I think they should be quota'd by the ISPs (actually, I think Brutus the Enforcer should pay the snot a personal visit, but that's just me). An ISP can quota a VOIP/Gaming DSCP to 3x-5x the width of the loosest of the VOIP codecs and still avoid making cheating at all attractive to a P2P user.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
|
