how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·Comcast
| reply to funchords
Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ... said by funchords:QoS is connotative of using prioritization, but QoS is also connotative of guarantees of service, discrimination between different applications, meeting some specific quality goal (latency/jitter/throughput/reduced error rates). The goal being: "always provide high availability to low-user customers." - These are the people paying the most money per bit, as it were. You want to keep those folks VERY happy. You care less about the folks that you are losing money on.
So yes, they want to maintain the Quality of Service for their cash cows.
It's QoS. You might not like how they define it, but it is.
Has anyone seen their speed drop below 128kbps during deprioritization? I've never actually experienced it myself.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us | | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by JohnInSJ:said by funchords:QoS is connotative of using prioritization, but QoS is also connotative of guarantees of service, discrimination between different applications, meeting some specific quality goal (latency/jitter/throughput/reduced error rates). The goal being: "always provide high availability to low-user customers." - These are the people paying the most money per bit, as it were. You want to keep those folks VERY happy. You care less about the folks that you are losing money on. So yes, they want to maintain the Quality of Service for their cash cows. No, that's not what I mean by "specific quality goal." It's also not what I mean by "different applications."
I mean measurable and specific goals, such as, "Fairchild DBMS latency to Alpine office maintained below 70 ms. with a 95% confidence during the peak hour, and an overall average of all samples under 18 ms." This might be one of a list of goals that mention other quality vectors such as speed or packet drops. QoS Rules are the network's instructions designed to accomplish those goals.
I understand your rationale because prioritization is a tool for achieving QoS goals and we tend to think of these in connected ways, but Comcast's method is pretty far from the way we should think about QoS.
Comcast's method is a kick toward the direction of user-vs-user fairness. It could be refined more (shorter windows, better-engineered floors with more weighted queue handling) and really be an option worth considering.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by funchords:Comcast's method is a kick toward the direction of user-vs-user fairness. It could be refined more (shorter windows, better-engineered floors with more weighted queue handling) and really be an option worth considering. It could be, but that's something even beyond the 80/20 rule in terms of effort to benefit. If there were such a thing as an 99.999/0.001 rule, this would be a quintessential case. | |
|
