--On December 15, 2005 11:27:29 AM +0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
given an internet where the congestion is at the edges, where
there are no alternate paths, i am not sure i understand your
suggestion.
fergie's message gets my vote for right-on message of the month.
this is all
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.
And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps
limits when handling
Chris Woodfield wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit
than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have
seen cases of older line cards approaching their
On 18/12/05, Chris Woodfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on abits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.And I have seen cases of older line cards
Joe Maimon wrote:
Chris Woodfield wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.
And I have seen cases of older line cards
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications
often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall
average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput.
What is your suggestion? High latency
Jay Hennigan wrote:
VoIP by design will have high PPS per connection as opposed to data flows.
At 20 ms sample rates you have 50 pps regardless of the CODEC or algorithm.
Increasing the time per sample to 40 ms would cut this in half but the
added
latency would result in degraded
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip
applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length
to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps
throughput.
What is your
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more
pipe) more than anything else.
Yes. Best effort should be something to aspire to, not worse than carrier
grade
-Original Message-
From: Sean Donelan[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16/12/2005 00:15:49
To: nanog@merit.edunanog@merit.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:16:17 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf
oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone?
also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queueing.pdf
most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need
it
in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the
queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that
qos
is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might
Thus spake Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Adaptive jitter buffers are old technology; Skype is hardly the first
company to use them. Most phones and softphones have them; it's the
gateways at the other end that are usually stuck with static ones.
Personally I find the delay of the
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote:
Hi Chris,
hey :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 10:29 PM
To: John Kristoff
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
snip
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 23:31, Randy Bush wrote:
would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
their money back?
Not taking into account the FDIC, we already have that, since banks are only
required to keep 10% of any given depositor's monies.
we're selling delivery
Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote:
Not 100% true. Through I agree QoS has little impact in the core
that has OCxx non-congested backbone (more comments below). In the
edge, it does has its place, as Stephen Sprunk and Mikael Abrahamsson
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in
the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS
Probably. Users, executives and reporters are rarely careful talking
about the technical details.
Sean,
And let's see: What was the problem again? ;-)
Oh, yeah -- some telco execs want to degrade traffic in their
networks based on __. (Fill in the blank.)
- ferg
-- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Maybe part of the
Bingo.
Very well stated.
- ferg
-- Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
On the operational end, the challenge becomes designing networks that in the
presence of ubiquitous oversubscription degrade gracefully and allow certain
features to have lesser degradation. Thus QoS.
[snip]
[ SNIP ]
This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco
engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff
(even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and
the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal
adoption of the services. Go
The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply
suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by
IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they
need it so they can offer Better QoS, like the subscribers want. What
they really mean, I suspect,
Bingo.
What they are really saying is:
We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new
ways to generate additional revenue.
;-)
Cheers,
- ferg
-- Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply
suspicious...here in the mobile
And not by offering you anything you might want to buy, either, but by setting up wanky little tollbooths.On 12/15/05, Fergie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Bingo.What they are really saying is:
We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need newways to generate additional revenue.;-)Cheers,-
[ SNIP ]
This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco
engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff
(even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and
the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal
adoption of the services. Go figure.
some harsher labels for it, too.
Cheers,
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: Fergie; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it.
But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you
can't
To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed
On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you
can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call.
Absolutely.
But if the carrier tunes their network so you will never get a busy
signal when calling into
Hi Benson,
Okay -- forget about banks, forget about other comparative
analogies -- let's talk about the Internet.
I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said
something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS
should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort'
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote:
I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said
something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS
should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort' -- and
anything less that best effort is _not_ the Internet.
ATT, Global
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of
averages or
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
What do they mean by QoS? Is it
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind
me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really
after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind
me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really
after. DoS
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
Regards;
Marshall
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and i wonder who is selling that need?
randy
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:52:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and i wonder who is selling that need?
the wierd
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and i
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf
oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone?
also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queueing.pdf
incase you type not paste.
--- Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for
example) if only a small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded
access) loads at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
There are two possible ways of having a tiered
Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional
levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same
network?
Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big
file
on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
- one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay,
and the other is to offer a premium service to those
who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service
on the same network as a non-premium service is
to delay non-premium
This
unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR
frame relay network and they carried this forward into their
IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this
architecture as well.
If I understand you correctly I highly doubt this is the case. If every
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:54:43 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth
so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the
network without ever being buffered at any of the core
network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
All providers in your
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle
with
the QoS settings on the provider's edge router
interface.
After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I assume you mean tell the customer what
DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:41:54 -0800 (PST), David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle
with
the QoS settings on the provider's edge router
interface.
After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction,
and a disaster of the
magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter
how popular tier 1 sites are, a substantial part of the user time
will be spent
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+
bills
To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I
don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the
network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving
customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second
that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel
not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this
be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be
Hello;
My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into
understanding nuances of what they are
being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are
paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your
bandwidth with your customers (a business's most
At 05:54 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
- one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay,
and the other is to offer a premium service to those
who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service
on the same
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+
-prioritizing the basic service.
Cheers,
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36
To: Schliesser, Benson
Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG
Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet
Hello;
My experience is that customers won't put a lot
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:39:51AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service
for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario
and since congestion scenarios are most common on
end customer links, it makes sense to let the end
customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both
directions on
At 08:41 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QoS is for customers, not for network operators!
--Michael Dillon
That is probably the best way I have heard it put before!
Since network bandwidth is a zero-sum game, QoS is simply a method of
handling degraded or congested service in a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:59:15AM -0800, Bob Snyder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service
for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario
and since congestion scenarios are most common on
end customer links, it makes sense to let the
Daniel Senie wrote:
Actually, the cable providers have an alternative. Since the cable
network really is broadband in the meaning from before it was
coopted to mean high speed, cable operators are able to utilize many
channels in parallel. If they want their voice traffic to be
unimpeded,
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the
telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly.
So far they seem to be not quite so evil (minus their port blocking for
some services, and
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a
disaster of the
magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter
how popular tier 1 sites are, a
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat.
Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or
another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due
~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a
- Original Message Follows -
From: Schliesser, Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED], NANOG nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Two Tiered Internet
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:40:58 -0600
Hi.
I agree with your comments re customers
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat. Almost all
the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest
expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc.
--On December 13, 2005 8:17:43 PM -0800 Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less
value than they
did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or
might vote with
their connectivity.
*IF* they have a
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am-
paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the
Internet is best-effort ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that
The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell
multiple
services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make
their
Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do
people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service
worse
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
Because they're telephone companies.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. They're evil.
Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable
co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For
telco's to offer premium service, they have
/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/
= telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
=
= ATT Inc. and BellSouth Corp. are lobbying Capitol Hill for the right
= to create a two-tiered Internet, where the telecom carriers' own
= Internet services would be transmitted faster and more
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in
ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum
game
is
Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is
Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks
at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
There are currently a couple of million IPTV users
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in
ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they
Marketing. Bah.
- ferg
-- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is
Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks
at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all
JM Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:45:09 -0500
JM From: Jeff McAdams
JM And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the
JM state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to
JM give them incentive to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a
JM mere
You know, I sent an idiotic response to a serious topic,
and I shouldn't have -- it is a serious issue which deserves
a serious response.
Anyone within earshot of The Great State of Texas (tm) should
know that the sickening machinations of the incumbent teclo(s)
and Cable Co.(s), and their
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
To our experience, current QoS mechanism ( WRR +
multiple_Queue) could not differentiate service
quality when bandwidth is overprivisioned. If there is
congestion, why should I stay with it while
.
The only way the TelCos are going to succeed in developing their
two-tiered internet is to provide compelling content only in their
premium service. Given that past efforts to produce compelling
content available on only one network (anyone remember web portals?)
have been dismal failures
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation.
Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which
is basically a billing network.
I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion
guys who think like this.
- ferg
-- Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation.
Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which
is basically
. If the Internet were to work like this, how would
we do it?
- ferg
-- Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation.
Switching hiearchies
I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was
switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and
other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy.
given an internet where the congestion is at the edges, where
there are no alternate paths, i am not sure i
somhow, this esacped into a private thread. i'm pretty
sure that there is a fairly high thermal component to this
thread and not too many photons... so this is it for me
on this thread...
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
You start with a
Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion
or is never busy.
s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/
would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some
bandwidth. we should
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/
telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me
shudder.
Before you complain... It did not require a subscription when I
first saw it.
On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Blaine Christian wrote:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/
telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/
telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me
shudder.
Comcast has been advertising in press releases
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957EDATE=
Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that
run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and
travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary
Sean,
I think you are skirting the real issue here.
Prioritizing traffic in order to provide reliable transport for isochronous
services is one thing; Using QoS features to de-prioritize traffic from a
competitor or a company who refuses to pay to access your customers is
something completely
--- Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for
example) if only a small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded
access) loads at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
-
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a
small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting
less value than they
did
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a
small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is
I know I would.
Regards
Marshall
On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Tony Li wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only
a small
portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads
at a
reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
