Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13, Ian Stirling <[email protected]> wrote:
Proritising classes of traffic can be less bad than the alternatives.
No, they're a bloody stupid way of doing it.
And other possible alternatives.
What, you mean like the sensible one? Your 'dumb pipe' connection is
throttled back according to how much you're shifting in relation to
everybody else (which has been a feature of networking kit for
This does not take into account the inherently bursty nature of some
applications.
Regrettably, most people do not know how to setup QOS.
Are you seriously arguing that everyone should have a deep understanding
of QOS, or a high speed unlimited package if they want their VOIP not to
stutter when someone else in the house downloads a 3 meg PDF?
IMO - traffic prioritisation - when done in an open transparent manner
(and yes, there are issues on traffic trying to pretend to be something
it's not) is less bad than the alternatives.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
