I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it does affect other users on my circuit. sure, it can be useful, but it's a sledge hammer where a light touch is required.
-eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote: > I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”. > > No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function. Its been working > fine for years without that. Its just people trying to do things on the > internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the > internet for THEIR use. > > If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the > end of the discussion. Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise > the internet won’t work the way they think it should. Those who have not > bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate. But if you > buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then you > must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it was > designed. > > And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is > something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember. But it is > something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data > reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using > realtime data. > > Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon. > > Rusty > > From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM > To: Main PLUG discussion list > Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality > debate > > Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to > provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the > detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a > network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. > <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think > that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to > accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged > infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for > this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty <[email protected]> > wrote: > I’m going to have to switch to inline answers. See below. > > > From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. > > >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the > >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves because > >the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is very much > >like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that scenario. > > Which is pretty much to my point. TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data > (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire). > > So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits > better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet. When > that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed. > > The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to > prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business. > > IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of > packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon > something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime > data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to > force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle. But I > still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle > it. > > In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime > data and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH more > of a requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was > originally designed. > > > You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind, but > > that is where we are at and it is not changing. > > So then you should reject any attempt to cram a bad design onto something > that wasn’t designed for it. Which those against any sort of net neutrality > seem to be trying to do – force a bad design on the wrong medium (assuming I > have half a clue as to what NN is SUPPOSED to be). > > Those who wish to transport realtime data over a network should design a > network that can do that, not co-opt somebody else’s network. Again, IMHO. > > Rusty > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Carruth, Rusty <[email protected]> > > wrote: > I still disagree. > > First, if they needed reliable delivery of packets, then they should use TCP. > > My understanding of the ‘theory’ of why streaming services use UDP is that it > doesn’t hurt ‘much’ if you lose a ‘few’ packets – not as much as them showing > up in the wrong order, or massively delayed, so using UDP is a workaround to > try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry realtime data. > > So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’ for > real-time data is to misuse the medium. And if a medium is misused, those so > misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it wasn’t > designed to do. > > Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data. > > Wasn’t intended to, IMHO. > > > (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who > claims to have invented it… And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp, > gopher, and uucp used to mean ;-) (and who performed tests to prove that, > between two Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than > anything else. But I digress! ;-) > > From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM > > To: Main PLUG discussion list > Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality > debate > > Rusty, > > I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic > behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP > and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like > packet loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie > most streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not then > video will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The reason why > there exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work with the > transport medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you have all > these different types of traffic contending for the same resource. If people > expect web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run efficiently > across the wire then prioritization is a reality that will not go away. This > is nature of modern networks where data, voice and video are all converged on > the same media. The reason I used the language I did was b/c an engineer who > does not understands this and actually thinks that 'all traffic' can be > treated the same will actually bring harm to the network. He will be doing a > great disservice to users he supporting all under the false notion of > 'equality'. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty <[email protected]> > wrote: > Yes, lets get back to the technical issues. > > First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain > SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them. If that the case, then a discussion of > the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain > endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue. > > Anyway, that being said - > > I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that > anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web > pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot. > > On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES a > different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic? If the > entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements than > the transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones. And have no > right to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate their demands. > > Especially at everyone else's expense. > > Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment? I claim that either the > systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within > the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium. Don’t demand that > the medium ADD special treatment for you. > > One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment > would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this > opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) monopoly > position to materially affect the open market in ways which could easily > damage the open market. > > > (I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was just > packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-) > > All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for, its > IMHO. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Herminio Hernandez Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM > To: Main PLUG discussion list > Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality > debate > > I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through > the lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I am sure > many would believe that government should a significant role is managing and > others not. Most of this thread has focused on that. > > I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first part > of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was bad > policy. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700 > > "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> First since I do not believe in > > > >> central planning > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >> I do not know what > >> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This > >> what is awesome about the > > > > > >> Free Market, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >> if there is market that was > >> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide > >> services. > > > > Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some > > much more generic theories. > > > > SteveT > > > > Steve Litt > > November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts > > http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust > > --------------------------------------------------- > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
