rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Yep
I'm all in favor of a QOS system.
i.e.
VOIP
HTTP
FTP
P2P
It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| said by rawgerz  :I'm all in favor of a QOS system. i.e. VOIP HTTP FTP P2P It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really. Better watch out. I tried to discuss positive aspects of QOS here a couple years ago, and got some pretty vehement negative responses. |
|
whiteyonenh
join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by viperlmw :said by rawgerz :I'm all in favor of a QOS system. i.e. VOIP HTTP FTP P2P It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really. Better watch out. I tried to discuss positive aspects of QOS here a couple years ago, and got some pretty vehement negative responses. I have no problems with QoS, in fact I use it on my home network, makes it alot easier than trying to get everyone to cooperate with the limited bandwidth.
If it were managed in that order and it wasn't restricted down to a specific amount, just by putting them in that order on priority, I don't see a real issue with it.
If VOIP isn't using all the bandwidth, HTTP gets it.
If HTTP isn't using all the bandwidth, FTP gets it.
If FTP isn't using all the bandwidth, P2P gets it, etc.
As long as it's reasonable and not completely outlandish like what Comcast does with Sandvine, it should be unnoticeable to the general user, and also to most advanced users. |
|
