well, I am giving serious thought to flashing that unit with DD-WRT. It's that or get a raspberry pie and set that up as the firewall and network manager.
-eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Gatekeeper's Dept On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: > I am not sure how well commercial devices implement QoS. As you saw it is > very powerful. > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Eric Oyen <[email protected]> wrote: > I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video > streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran > into a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus > router I am using. > > -eric > from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting div. > > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: > >> What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS is >> an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light or >> heavy as you want it to be. >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> 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
