----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:23:02 -0400 From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]> E5C47602-B6CC-11DF-BD05-39AB4A3287EA:
Begin forwarded message: > From: Mike Liebhold <[email protected]> > Date: September 2, 2010 3:02:36 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: ip <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > After reading a lot of online and offline expert comments to my original > post, I am coming around to the the view that David Reed suggested, that > only two fundamental tiers of service are really necessary, one is best > effort, for most internet traffic and the other is a guaranteed low latency > service ( Whether costs could or should be variable is an open issue, based > on service requirements for emergency links, voip, 2-way video, realtinme > sensor or actuator nets.nets. and machine to machine connections for adhoc > computing clusters or grids in the cloud..... etc.) > > I also now see that in the absence of of an internet standard practice for > differentiated services currently to implement the end to end guarantees > for a service like Cisco telepresence, either the service has to employ a > private contractual agreement with all traversed networks to reserve a route > and to give priority transit through all routers probably using a flavor of > MLPS implemented in Cisco's software stack. > > Or... the service must operate entirely with a network controlled end to end > by by one operator. > > Also, I'm beginning to see that these issues are somewhat orthoganal to the > questions of net neutrality where network service operators would > discriminate costs for acces for some business reason independent of the > technical requirements of isochronous services. > > Many thanks to everyone for your thoughtful comments. > > Mike > > > > On 9/2/10 4:42 AM, Dave Farber wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Richard Shockey <[email protected]> >>> Date: September 1, 2010 1:01:07 PM EDT >>> To: [email protected], 'ip' <[email protected]> >>> Subject: RE: [IP] Fwd: net neutrality vs. diff-serv? >>> >> >>> For IP if you wish. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike you pointed out several things that have been obvious to those of us >>> in the Internet Engineering Community for some time. First packet >>> discrimination for various reasons, including congestion control, have been >>> part of the Internet Protocol suite since its inception. It???s not just >>> DIFSERV its is the core MPLS networks at the heart of most modern carrier >>> networks that could be affected if the proposed rules are >>> not clearly understood. >>> >>> >>> >>> ATT today filed a ex parte statement along these lines today. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/att.paid.prioritization.letter.fcc.083110.pdf >>> >>> I don???t want to debate policy or the competition issues here, but it is >>> self evident that there are some applications that use IP networks that are >>> highly sensitive to packet latency and Voice and Telepresence/Point to >>> Point Video are first among them. The Cisco Telepresence applications in >>> particular generally require setting up a 10M per second MPLS circuit point >>> to point to achieve anything like a QoS. >>> >>> My own guess is that nearly 40% of all US Voice traffic is on IP networks >>> at some point in transmission now and with the next generation LTE/IMS/SIP >>> mobile networks that will rise to over 70% and yes its all ???managed??? IP >>> traffic. >>> >>> In addition it also seems self evident that emergency service >>> communications that use IP networks will need priority labeling for obvious >>> reasons. Congestion control has been part of the analog PSTN since its >>> inception, that is why you get fast busy signals some time and the USG has >>> the GETS system in place for priority access to the PSTN for Emergency >>> Communications. >>> >>> There has been a substantial lack of technical input to the Net Neutrality >>> discussion many of us hope this will change ASAP. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Mike Liebhold <[email protected]> >>> Date: August 30, 2010 7:24:29 PM EDT >>> To: Dave Farber <[email protected]> >>> Subject: net neutrality vs. diff-serv? >>> >>> [for IP if you choose] >>> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> A colleague and I are struggling to understand the nuances of the net >>> neutrality debate, and are wondering if anyone on IP can help us. >>> >>> We are trying to understand the inter-relationships between net neutrality >>> policies, QoS, differentiated services for applications like burst >>> download for bulky files, guaranteed medium quality voip, high quality >>> teleconferencing, or streaming HD across the heterogenoous Internet. If >>> diff-serv capabilities are - not- allowed, under the currently debated net >>> neutrality regimens, how would telepresence services like Cisco's be able >>> to reserve routes across the internet offering a low-latency, low jitter >>> session? >>> >>> What kinds of tiered services are allowed now, prohibited now, would be >>> possible or prohibited under different policy outcomes? >>> >>> It's a messy issue that requires clear thinking, good understanding to take >>> an informed perspective. >>> >>> Any plain english explanations would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Many Thanks, >>> >>> Mike Liebhold >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ----- End forwarded message -----
