Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26 | reply to ColdFiltered
Re: I don't get this:
Are you saying that the FCC could force the ISP to use QOS for all the customers using third party VoIP? |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to ColdFiltered
Ah, ok. You are absolutely right. |
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| reply to DaSneaky1D
Example:
An Earthlink DSL subscriber in Atlanta will more commonly be found on BellSouth Telecommunications local WAN. This means that between the DSL modem and the Earthlink gateway (into their network) its riding Bellsouth ATM core. Those cores are setup for UBR and no differential treatment on the packets traveling with those tunnels/routes between the subscriber and ISP.
Additionally, the tariff service is for Bellsouth acting as a wholesalers to ISPs, and that tariff is based on UBR. You can classify layer three packets to contain priority, but on layer two they will be treated just like any other ATM packet, including ATM-carried packets that may have layer three qualities much lower.
And example within an example:
Two customers riding the same ILEC ATM core that is necessary between the two subscribers and their respective ISPs. One ISP sets up VoIP to have higher priority Layer-3 traffic than all other services. The other ISP doesn't offer VoIP and doesn't really care about Layer-3 priorities (QoS).
Now, on the LEC's ATM core the only thing that matters IN SOME CASES is the distinguishment of QoS on Layer-2 and both these customers are treated identically in this case. So, the second subscriber's porn, music, gaming, email, etc. traffic is treated more more or less important as the first subscriber's VoIP phone service.
In order to guarantee voice packets priority over all other forms of traffic this needs to be address on network segments that the ISPs do not control. This is where the much fear ILEC-offered VoIP will come into big play. This will be done through the use of a different network topology on both Layer-2 and 3 that will afford wholesale prioritization of packets. But who says that ILEC has to resell on that topology? No one. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to ColdFiltered
said by ColdFiltered  :More importantly not all ISP's can control the Bit-Rate (CBR, ABR, VBR, UBR, etc.) on the WAN between themselves and their subscribers. So, how does inplementing future guidelines help here, FCC? How do you figure this? Unless I misunderstood your comment, an ISP can control every aspect of network performance between themselves and their subscribers.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to Corvus
If an ISP intentionally disrupts the traffic of a competing service, the FCC may be called in to try to prevent that from happening.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ |
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | reply to Corvus
More importantly not all ISP's can control the Bit-Rate (CBR, ABR, VBR, UBR, etc.) on the WAN between themselves and their subscribers. So, how does inplementing future guidelines help here, FCC? |
|
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| it's how incumbent carriers will treat competing VoIP traffic that will have many urging the FCC to pass new guidelines
Guidelines on what? When you pay your ISP, you pay for the traffic you'll use, why ISP need guidelines?
--
demagogue \DEM-uh-gog\, noun: 1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. 2. A leader of the common people in ancient times |
|
