Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Alex Conta wrote:
> > The Diffserv QoS engines in the access routers do a policing
> > (classification&metering&dropping) that trims the high level QoS traffic
> > -- hacked by a user, or not -- to the level specified in SLAs, TCAs. So,
> > a user, at the most, uses up all that was contracted with the ISP, and
> > paid for, anyway. This is in fact THE BEAUTY of THE MODEL.
>
> You seem to assume that you would always spoof to get _better_ service.
> This may not be the case, especially if you have to pay for the premium
> (and ISP would want you to pay more, of course :). If e.g. some 3G
> mobiles were using this mechanism, Bastard Operators might set it so that
> some messages (think SMS) are dirty expensive compared to "normal
> traffic". Then, if the user would be able to change the label to get
> those for a cheaper price (and perhaps insignificant loss of QoS) and get
> billed way less, he might do it.
But at busy hour they may get no service at all so I think they will
still get what they pay for.
>
> Also, the idea that an operator might do QoS classification etc. on the
> traffic _for free_ (e.g. add "low delay" to dport 22, 23; low cost to nntp
> etc.) just to benefit the user(s) is unfamiliar to you? This is where
> "spoofing" becomes annoying, because people don't pay for the extra QoS.
> I think this was a basis in "spoofing better QoS capabilities"
> discussion.
Hate to say it, but soft-hearted ISPs who do this will indeed be ripped
off by some of their users.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
