viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| A word on QOS and prioritization
From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)"
I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. |
|
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| I've taken to running my bit torrent at night when I'm sleeping so I can stand to use my connection, but I'd be totally OK with Comcast throttling (not RESETTING) my uploads during peak hours (or even non-peak hours, if to a lesser extent).
However, forging RST packets I am NOT OK with, as it undermines the basis of TCP/IP.
Slow down my bit torrent packets, I don't care, just don't sever the connection completely (especially not with forged replies). |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw  :From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)" I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to lordofwhee
I could see that type of prioritization of resources being ok. If the network is being heavily used and large groups of people are going to be affected, then get the top 5-10% of users and slow down their speeds until the congestion is over. Better that 5-10% of customers get slowed down than 100% of customers get slowed down. Of course, improving their network capacity is the better, long term solution.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by viperlmw :From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)" I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free. Here's a virtual quarter. Call someone who cares. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free. the bandwidth isn't free, it's paid for. and what was that word those big ISPs use in their advertisements... oh yeah, unlimited! |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by viperlmw :From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)" I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free. I'm sorry that i expect to get what i am being sold.
Other wise it's false advertising or a bait and switch.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw :I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful The "potential" of QoS/prioritization to "useful" is limited.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free. I went and searched for the discussion in question. The poster didn't get "lambasted" for speaking "out against bandwidth hogs" or against "populist mob rule"... The discussion in question was about the technical nitty gritty of QoS and its effects on traffic and the poster didn't understand QoS enough to debate the person he/she was talking to in the thread.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
filizaragoza
join:2006-01-11
San Diego, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
IF they Advertise 10MB/2MB Connection for $$.$$ of money a month, and you pay the such amount,
I have the right or use such connection at full speed for 1 a month or period the payment covers.....
The problem is they oversubscribe a NODE, what that means
is a node has like 300/50 MB ;
They sell 100 People the 10/2, They are required to have 1000/100 Bandwidth provision, yet they don,t, they just provide 300/50.
IT's like a plane that has 87 Seats, and the airline sells 95 arguing that some people have a tendency to miss planes,
So as long as these people miss the plane the airlines double sells 8 seats, but what happens when every body arrives in time to board the plane? do you split you're sell in 3? so at least part of you gets on the plane!
That's Whats happening here, The Cable is Charging for a Service that is not fulfilling 100%, as it lacks capacity,
SOLUTION Sell only what you have.
Want to sell more, Upgrade,
COMCAST Solution: Reset Connections, Lobby, And not give people gat they pay for.
and the people that use the connection at over 50% Call them Bandwidth hogs.,
If you pay for Cellular, and your plan has 1000 Minutes any time... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT To use 1000 MINUTES, if you use over 800 the Cell Company says you're a HOG... will you like that?
IF anything it's at least deceptive marketing, or fraud.. by Cable. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by filizaragoza :That's Whats happening here, The Cable is Charging for a Service that is not fulfilling 100%, as it lacks capacity, SOLUTION Sell only what you have. Want to sell more, Upgrade, If you get what you are demanding, then instead of $43/mo or $53/mo, expect to pay $150/mo. Overbooking, as you call it, is why the costs are what they are. Change that method and you will need to pay much more. There is no free lunch.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Overbooking is fine, but you have to manage that so that you are capable of keeping up with your obligations with some degree of certainty.
I've asked before if there's a standard for managing overbooking so that customers still get the bandwidth when they demand it, but it seems that there isn't or people don't know what it is.
For Comcast -- maybe for Cable MSOs as a category -- the wheels of management have left the track. Telcos have arranged their business differently. It's still shared bandwidth, but there are more people in a much bigger pool and they seem able to hit their targets much more often than Cable can.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
Filiberto
@telnor.net | reply to TKJunkMail
Yet when you use the services as it's advertice you ar call a bandwidth HOG |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :said by viperlmw :I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful The "potential" of QoS/prioritization to "useful" is limited. I agree. I have always agreed. The primary benefit to implementing QOS IMHO has always centered around it's use in assuring time sensitive packets get thru as needed in applications such as streaming video/audio and VOIP. No amount of network upgrades or other management tactics, reasonable or not, will ENSURE availability of bandwidth to these types of applications in all segments of the network at all times. Malfunctions happen. Unanticipated capacity utilization occurs. QOS can be used to assist time sensitive applications under these and other circumstances. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by viperlmw :I agree. I have always agreed. The primary benefit to implementing QOS IMHO has always centered around it's use in assuring time sensitive packets get thru as needed in applications such as streaming video/audio and VOIP. No amount of network upgrades or other management tactics, reasonable or not, will ENSURE availability of bandwidth to these types of applications in all segments of the network at all times. Malfunctions happen. Unanticipated capacity utilization occurs. QOS can be used to assist time sensitive applications under these and other circumstances. First and foremost, you are correct in the assertion that providers can never have 100% bandwidth available, 100% of the time. Those of us who work in the industry work our hardest to ensure that we can get as close to that as possible without breaking your or our bank.
However, you seem to overestimate the ability of QoS and underestimate its abilities to have undesirable effects. I went and found the conversation you had with the moderator many moons ago. Yes, QoS is very useful in helping out time sensitive applications, but it can also create issues, as was hashed out in your conversation with the moderator. The moderator was correct in the statement that prioritizing classes of traffic has an effect on other classes of traffic and it can be negative.
There are other limitations to QoS, which I think were touched on in that conversation you had with the moderator. If QoS is not maintained from your system to the target host, its usefulness is severely limited. Here's an example - All providers love peering points, but peering points are oft congested and there is no QoS at them. So a VoIP call that maintains a good flow in the first mile due to QoS can be totally decimated at a peering hand off. And then there is no guarantee that your ISP's transit provider or peer will even respect the QoS assigned to your packet anymore.
If you and others are going to advocate QoS, it needs to be advocated across the board, on up to transit providers. However, before that position is taken, people need to understand what type of impact that would have...
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by NetAdmin :However, you seem to overestimate the ability of QoS and underestimate its abilities to have undesirable effects. I went and found the conversation you had with the moderator many moons ago. Yes, QoS is very useful in helping out time sensitive applications, but it can also create issues, as was hashed out in your conversation with the moderator. The moderator was correct in the statement that prioritizing classes of traffic has an effect on other classes of traffic and it can be negative. Can be?
All traffic is forwarded at the speed of light. Big caps so that you know it is true: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIORITIZATION. There is only "deprioritization." In order to allow certain packets to get ahead or cut in line, network devices slow down and fragment everything else.
This isn't a bad thing. DiffServ (RFC 2474 et al which is Internet Standard (de-)prioritization on the net) can add a few percentage points of robustness to sensitive applications. But it's critically important to understand how very limited its benefits are.
Comcast isn't very interested in proper DiffServ because it doesn't allow them to run their networks under extended congestion conditions. They're trying to avoid upgrading the network as often as they otherwise would have to. Unfortunately, there is no alternative for that problem.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by funchords :All traffic is forwarded at the speed of light. No it isn't. Not even optical components forward at the speed of light. And forwarding speed is irrelvant, as it is the capacity of the PHY (physical layer) that is what is important.
Big caps so that you know it is true: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIORITIZATION. There is only "deprioritization." I'd like to know where you found that information...
In order to allow certain packets to get ahead or cut in line, network devices slow down and fragment everything else. Raising the priority of a flow of traffic and that resulting in other flows treated having to wait due to their lower priority is vastly different than explicitly lowering the priority of one flow of traffic.
Comcast isn't very interested in proper DiffServ because it doesn't allow them to run their networks under extended congestion conditions. They're trying to avoid upgrading the network as often as they otherwise would have to. Unfortunately, there is no alternative for that problem. Comcast is treating the symptom and not the problem. Part of the problem is that Comcast and others have been pulled into the battle of the cablecos versus the telcos, resulting in insane speeds for ridiculously low prices. Providers are pricing their internet packages at points where it becomes difficult to deal with the heavy use that is becoming more normal. In the case of DOCSIS, there is no reason why it a provider should be able to offer 10+ Mbps of service to a residential user at the same price as 3Mbps several years ago. Unless they are actively splitting nodes, you still have the same amount of bandwidth now as you did a year or two or three or four, especially when you take into account that usage is rising across the board.
Providers need to start balancing out better the speed offered and the revenue they bring in so they can better maintain capacity.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :said by viperlmw :I agree. I have always agreed. The primary benefit to implementing QOS IMHO has always centered around it's use in assuring time sensitive packets get thru as needed in applications such as streaming video/audio and VOIP. No amount of network upgrades or other management tactics, reasonable or not, will ENSURE availability of bandwidth to these types of applications in all segments of the network at all times. Malfunctions happen. Unanticipated capacity utilization occurs. QOS can be used to assist time sensitive applications under these and other circumstances. First and foremost, you are correct in the assertion that providers can never have 100% bandwidth available, 100% of the time. Those of us who work in the industry work our hardest to ensure that we can get as close to that as possible without breaking your or our bank. However, you seem to overestimate the ability of QoS and underestimate its abilities to have undesirable effects. I went and found the conversation you had with the moderator many moons ago. Yes, QoS is very useful in helping out time sensitive applications, but it can also create issues, as was hashed out in your conversation with the moderator. The moderator was correct in the statement that prioritizing classes of traffic has an effect on other classes of traffic and it can be negative. There are other limitations to QoS, which I think were touched on in that conversation you had with the moderator. If QoS is not maintained from your system to the target host, its usefulness is severely limited. Here's an example - All providers love peering points, but peering points are oft congested and there is no QoS at them. So a VoIP call that maintains a good flow in the first mile due to QoS can be totally decimated at a peering hand off. And then there is no guarantee that your ISP's transit provider or peer will even respect the QoS assigned to your packet anymore. If you and others are going to advocate QoS, it needs to be advocated across the board, on up to transit providers. However, before that position is taken, people need to understand what type of impact that would have... NetAdmin
First, let me say that I appreciate the lack of vitriol in your responses. You seem interested in discussing issues and not just blasting away at people.
I agree QOS may not be as helpful as desired and has the potential to be abused or overly restrictive. And I wouldn't say that I have been advocating the use of QOS. All I have ever said is that it has the potential to be useful for certain time sensitive applications. I also realize that it would have to be implemented at all levels in all areas, and that isn't going to happen. So the only real reason this is worthy of discussion is as an academic exercise, one I enjoy participating in. I am interested in discussing the technology, not the politics. However, if the public internet is going to be used for critical applications such as VOIP (critical as in the PSTN is considered critical) where the traffic HAS to get thru, even during periods of congestion or malfunction, something will have to be done. Just throwing more bandwidth at the problem will not always be the answer. Comcast is carving out dedicated bandwidth for it's VOIP. Is THAT the answer? Will everyone have to do that? There are those advocating the elimination of the PSTN and using public internet VOIP for voice. How do you get that as reliable as the PSTN? I guess that's my yardstick on how well the internet works. When VOIP is as reliable as the PSTN, then I will know these issues have been solved. Until then, there's a problem. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :I'd like to know where you found that information... I work in this industry and I've seen this code. Think about it -- write it in psuedocode -- how WOULD you give traffic priority? You wouldn't -- you can't. You can only slow everything else. It's like how a firetruck or an ambulance gets priority, everyone and everything else pulls over to let it through.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by funchords : Think about it -- write it in psuedocode -- how WOULD you give traffic priority? You wouldn't -- you can't. You can only slow everything else. It's like how a firetruck or an ambulance gets priority, everyone and everything else pulls over to let it through. And prioritization is only meaningful when their is congestion. Until their is congestion there is no need for priority schemes because everything is getting thru. Only when routers start dropping packets do priority rules kick in.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
