how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
724 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | OMG Net NEUTRALITY! With this talk of priority tiers and paying more for it, this "method" is just screaming Net Neutrality! | |
|   funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit |  Questions: Would you use such a system?
said by Gbcue:With this talk of priority tiers and paying more for it, this "method" is just screaming Net Neutrality! So here's a thought. Let's say that there are three buckets:
1. Assured forwarding
2. Best effort
3. Less-than-best-effort
Now, let's say that
•EVERYTHING goes into bucket #2 unless you specifically request it
•all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more
•all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap
Questions:
- do you see a network neutrality problem here?
- would you use such a system, why or why not?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Questions: Would you use such a system? That's the same thing Comcast is doing with filtering. | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:•all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more Monthly quotas are too granular. The realtime bitrate would need to be policed.
said by funchords:•all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap Ostensibly this would work for uploads, but how is it going to get marked coming in from the Internet for downloads? | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Questions: Would you use such a system? said by espaeth:Ostensibly this would work for uploads, but how is it going to get marked coming in from the Internet for downloads? Beyond the problematic solution of saying at the access routers detected by DPI, do you have any better ideas? Maybe in IP6 land, using a different IP?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
| | | said by funchords:So here's a thought. Let's say that there are three buckets: 1. Assured forwarding 2. Best effort 3. Less-than-best-effort Now, let's say that •EVERYTHING goes into bucket #2 unless you specifically request it •all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more •all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap Questions: - do you see a network neutrality problem here? - would you use such a system, why or why not? As a network engineer I personally think this the most logical and safest evolution from "best effort". It provides quality of service that is user managed. It allows me, as a customer, to prioritize my bits within my home as well as within my ISPs network. It puts the customer in control of network management. e.g. my Skype conference call vs. my multi-tasking web surfing, email attachment sending, etc. .
It is "neutral" if the customer chooses to use it or not and manages the "buckets".
There are potential pit falls to this, but with proper watch dog groups and telco/cable/wireless competition, it can succeed.
•how many "priority" bits come with my service?
•how do you do capacity planning around "best" and "less-than best" effort traffic?
•can we do interprovider QoS? - not likely
Second question... Can an ISP also offer these priorities to their large content / transit customers without violating net-neutrality principals? End to end QoS?
PS While I agree with the 3 buckets, I expect ISP marketing departments will want to tailor them some. | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Questions: Would you use such a system? Yeah, the example is simple but it isn't elegant. A 25 GB cap isn't the right Assured Forwarding quota, but it's easy to think about for discussion's sake.
said by yt:Second question... Can an ISP also offer these priorities to their large content / transit customers without violating net-neutrality principals? End to end QoS? I've always presumed they do this anyway. How else are virtual end-to-end private networks created? Where I don't want to see QoS happen is between services on the Internet that remains (unless the user is in control). Or between a particular content provider and the Internet at large (the clear-cut NN problems).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | Re: Questions: Would you use such a system? said by funchords:Where I don't want to see QoS happen is between services on the Internet that remains (unless the user is in control). Or between a particular content provider and the Internet at large (the clear-cut NN problems). The second half is my question. Would it be "OK" for a user to request end to end QoS from a content provider? Now the rub is that the content provider would have to be directly connected to the ISP (a transit customer or a peer) as Inter-provider QoS is even harder (technically and politically) than Inter-provider SLAs.
It's a bit sticky, but there are benefits. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Questions: Would you use such a system? I think this is how the RSVP protocol works (although that has a multicast component to it).
I think Interprovider QoS ought not be as hard as people make it out to be. What's the issue, really? But that's a different problem for a different day. Let's get the residential ISP and customers working together, then we can knock on the next door.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
| |
|
