& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 13 / 18   >   >>
Mark Seery
Mark Seery
12/5/2012 | 4:08:35 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
PO,

You have asserted that every one is of one mind. That seems like a religious assertion to me. Once again your approach is to attack me, rather than make an argument.

Explain why slow-start was created?
Explain why NewReno is being proposed?
Explain whether or not there are any unresolved problems even with these approaches?
Explain why it is you believe that a protocol that throttles the sender is using the maximum available bandwidth, and to what degree of precision it knows what the maximum available bandwidth is, and to what degree of precision it can react to what you might be tempted to call the changing amount of available bandwidth?
Explain why a protocol that retransmits packets it assumes to be lost, and which the application in question might not want transmitted, is not actually wasting bandwidth, and therefore by definition not using the maximum available bandwidth?

In short stop making attacks, and start making an argument. and start by considering the fact that just because someone views the situation in a different way than you, does not mean they do not understand data communications. That is not an argument, that is a very weak and characterless substitute for an argument.
PO
PO
12/5/2012 | 4:08:35 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Mark, I've been involved with data networking in various capacities since the early 80's. Nobody who understands TCP, Tahoe, Reno, NewReno, etc would make the sort of assertions you made about UDP "not interfering" with throughput as TCP does, and about the design purposes of TCP.

If you know data networking, then you certainly haven't demonstrated that knowledge in your comments.
sgan201
sgan201
12/5/2012 | 4:08:34 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Steve,

1) We had extensive experience from FR network that people want certain increment of bandwidth. For eexample, I would imagine if someone want a good quality VoIP line to home, they probably want Y to be 128Kbps. For video conferencing, Y = 512Kbps. Y is not arbitrary. It is defined by the distint application that consumer want.

2) Infrastructure costs

Actually, a lot if not most of my requirements can be implemented with pre-existing equipments. DSL modem is running IP over ATM, most DSLAMs in USA are running ATM. So, from DSL modem to the B-RAS it is ATM all the way. ATM VCC can be used to guarantee the bandwidth all the way from DSL modem to the B-RAS. From B-RAS to Internet Gate way router is just a few aggregate trunks running different over-subscription rate.

3) 80-20 rule
The majority of the congestion problem in the network is in the access link. It is not in the core or backbone. If I have two locations (A & B), both have guarantee Y Kbps to the Internet. Most of the time, I pretty much has Y kbps between those two locations most of the times. I had solved my 80% congestion problem. It may not be worthwhile for me or the service provider to solve the remaining 20% problem.

4) Oil and gas company is running a commodity business and they are highly profitable. There is nothing wrong in running a commodity business.

Dreamer
rjs
rjs
12/5/2012 | 4:08:34 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
One fine day Intel and AMD find that processing bits has become a commodity and now feel that they need a cut of every application that runs on their processors!

That is right ... eventhough you paid for your computer upfront, Intel/AMD could ask you to
pay a premium for every application that the
end user runs on their machines.

Most of us would be up in arms if such a thing were ever to happen ....
This is exactly what the carriers and RBOCs want.

Gentlemen use common sense --- just because RBOCs and the carriers feel that they need more returns that does not mean that we should rollover and give it.

LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE ... it is a good thing even with all the shortcomings mentioned in the
discussion. Far better than having the RBOCs screw around with common carriage laws.
This will be worse than the fox guarding the chicken coop.

I am amazed that it even discussed!


-RJS
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 4:08:34 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Most of the listed carriers asking for the QoS premium payments already have routers/switches at OLTs/DSLAMs that can provide QoS for each 'service'. Just Google the router/switch vendors. Most telcos also then have various methods to carry either ethernet or IP services aggregated over their own ATM/MPLS matrix networks with QoS. They also have ways to measure gross capacity utilization (erlangs anyone) per customer G«ˇserviceG«÷ or aggregated service.

The telcos donG«÷t have to control QoS on the CPE outbound port as the customer (CPE) manages this BW. It is only at the DSLAM/OLT router/switch, where the customer is aggregated with thousands of other customers sharing the same BW capacity that they need to segregate/prioritize their premium services.

------
The question is not whether they will use QoS, it is built in the networks. From their viewpoint they are segregating the existing best effort BW from those BW expansions needed for theirs and others new premium services. This bandwidth expansion may include port (e.g. ADSL to VDSL) upgrade and some BW in the existing access and core matrix network. So the question becomes how much they should expand their network to support premium services for themselves and others. But why should they expand their network if no one is willing to pay for expansions for theirs or others premium services? Or stated differently, what are the market projections for capacity needs for themselves and others? They just sent up a marketing trial balloon and also positioned themselves as offering BW capacity to others who wish to pay for it. Or else if they donG«÷t wish to pay for the expansion they can just use the congesting best effort BW that is currently available and for which they bought access to.

These costly expansions for premium services don't happen overnight for telcos, nor even for cabelcos. (why telcos are perceived as moving slowly) In many cases it is much easier/cheaper for them to add capacity initially, rather than later. QoS enables them to overbuild and then supply BW capacity QoS limited to what someone is willing to pay for.

As they started these network expansions, Google and others have forced the expansion size issue quicker than they had anticipated (and are accustom to) But will anyone else buy additional BW from them for premium services? The trial balloon went up so when others later need/demand it because they are congested from all the added traffic, they can argue they offered QoS BW and no one wanted it. They can then wait until they are ready to expand it again.

Many still donG«÷t understand that on a shared (matrix) network they bought access port BW and not end to end BW guarantees. They bought just the use of congesting best effort BW that is available as others are added or add traffic. As some have pointed out, they didnG«÷t even get a guarantee between the ratio of access port BW to shared BW in the access or core matrix network. But they can buy premium services end to end with guarantees through QoS on any expanded network capacity if needed.

BTW the telcos could also use QoS to reduce the existing BE BW capacity (as some have suggested) to shoe in their premium services. But I don't think that is their goal or mind set yet.

Also note that QoS allocates average and peak BW. That difference between the average and peak BW is statistically shared with others as BE in most COS/QoS schemes. This makes the shared network with QoS premium services less expensive than TDM networks. And it enables faster re-configuration (end to end) for premium services.

OldPOTS
Mark Seery
Mark Seery
12/5/2012 | 4:08:34 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
stephencooke,

Thanks for your response.

All good questions and ones that would need to be asked.

I agree there are any number of network boundary issues that are still being discussed / resolved.

It was not my impression that IP/Ethernet equipment could only operate at 30% of a 10Gbps. I wonder if this is all equipment or just some? Would be interesting to hear what experience led you to this understanding and what type of equipment (if you don't want to name specific vendors I would understand).

I agree that all of this is a huge undertaking. But two thoughts. One, if a mechanism could be put in to assure the QoS of a Google service for example, could other business models with the same mechanisms be explored? Secondly, if access providers become very successful at being toll collectors, to what extent would they be incented to be in the value added services business; i.e. what would it say about the effective industry structure at that point?
BigBrother
BigBrother
12/5/2012 | 4:08:34 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
May be if you want to run 100 apps in you Intel or AMD processor and then Intel or AMD will tell you if you pay more to add more processors to run all the 100 apps you may want to do the upgrade. If you paid for a multi-cores system and Intel or AMD may said, I can give you a key to turn on more processors to increase the speed of your apps, you may want to do so. You may be paying for a dual core at first and you pay more to triple cores by just upgrading some keys. This may be the future anyway.
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by private IP networks. The last mile is used by both Internet access and any private IP services. There seems to be a physical overlap of the two IP-based 'networks' so how can one be 'bypassed'?

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you mean the Internet to be something that does not necessarily include the access portion of the carrier's networks...? This is a bit of a conundrum as there is no access to anything without that portion of the physical and logical 'network'. At one point you stated that the Internet has no storage of information, that it is connections 'across the Internet' to gain information. I think it was on the Google thread.

Could you elaborate? Thanks.

Steve.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

Dreamer,

Except that the Local Access will not prioritize the traffic, so it won't work.

seven
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

Just as an aside, this form of QoS and private network sharing with an Internet connection is being done in the cable world. It's called Packet Cable and the Voice over DOCSIS works this way. If Vonage customers are sharing the same cable modem segment as the MSO's voice over cable, the MSO voice wins every time in terms of QoS.

Nobody seems to talk about that.

At an extended level, the use of QAM channels for Video restricts people's Internet Access over cable as well. If the QAM channels were used for Internet Access instead of video channels, there would be a lot more bandwidth available for the Internet.

Nobody seems bothered by this either.

seven
<<   <   Page 13 / 18   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events