RE: Two Tiered Internet
--On December 15, 2005 11:27:29 AM +0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: given an internet where the congestion is at the edges, where there are no alternate paths, i am not sure i understand your suggestion. fergie's message gets my vote for right-on message of the month. this is all smoke. Exactly. They're scared that VoIP will eat them alive (probably right) and so they're rushing to 'do something about it' and so they're using the PUCs to legalize their monopolies. Can't have this router riff-raff running the show now can we. They've been watching income dwindle for a while now. Long distance isn't the cash cow it once was, with every cell phone getting free, at least nearly, or cheap LD. And the prospect of WiFi enabled cities, that means that no one has to pay them for the last mile, or at least a lot less people will, well, they (Ma Bell and the Babies) just can't have that. I'm hoping to get some more time this week to really read through the proposed junk and get a better handle on *what* they're trying to do, other than the obvious of securing their revenue stream by all means necessary. Fact is, we're (ISPs in general) all lighter, faster, and more aggressive.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps limits when handling large numbers of VoIP flows even though there's plenty of throughput headroom. That's not something LLQ or priority queueing are going to be able to help you mitigate at all. -C On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A single VoIP call is a rather slim volume of packets compared to many other uses of the Internet. If a network doesn't have systemic jitter caused by layer 2 congestion, then one would expect VoIP to work fine on a modern network. Indeed, that is what Bill Woodcock reported a year or so ago in regard to INOC-DBA. --Michael Dillon
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Chris Woodfield wrote: One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps limits when handling large numbers of VoIP flows even though there's plenty of throughput headroom. That's not something LLQ or priority queueing are going to be able to help you mitigate at all. -C In that vein, and not quite on this topic, it would be real nice if voip applications made an effort to stop abusing networks with unneccessarily large pps. Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On 18/12/05, Chris Woodfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on abits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their ppslimits when handling large numbers of VoIP flows even though there'splenty of throughput headroom. That's not something LLQ or priority queueing are going to be able to help you mitigate at all. Only older line cards ? Currently NPE-G1'sare causing me more headaches in that regard. At least up until last friday. /Tony
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Joe Maimon wrote: Chris Woodfield wrote: One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps limits when handling large numbers of VoIP flows even though there's plenty of throughput headroom. That's not something LLQ or priority queueing are going to be able to help you mitigate at all. -C In that vein, and not quite on this topic, it would be real nice if voip applications made an effort to stop abusing networks with unneccessarily large pps. VoIP by design will have high PPS per connection as opposed to data flows. At 20 ms sample rates you have 50 pps regardless of the CODEC or algorithm. Increasing the time per sample to 40 ms would cut this in half but the added latency would result in degraded quality. In addition, longer sample times would suffer much more degradation if there is packet loss. Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput. I'm not sure why you say the payload length has much to do with RTT. Serialization delay on slow edge links could increase RTT, but this would worsen substantially with longer samples (assuming the same CODEC and compression). Payload length is a factor of the sample length and compression algorithm. More efficient compression will result in smaller payloads but overhead becomes a higher percentage of the overall flow. Only lengthier samples will reduce PPS, and the added latency in a two-way conversation will substantially reduce call quality. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput. What is your suggestion? High latency connections can have higher VOIP latency by increasing packet size, or low IP-latency connections can handle higher VOIP latency by increasing packet size? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Jay Hennigan wrote: VoIP by design will have high PPS per connection as opposed to data flows. At 20 ms sample rates you have 50 pps regardless of the CODEC or algorithm. Increasing the time per sample to 40 ms would cut this in half but the added latency would result in degraded quality. In addition, longer sample times would suffer much more degradation if there is packet loss. My point is that sampling length should take into effect the rtt. A rtt of 200ms tolerates far shorter sampling slices than does 20ms.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput. What is your suggestion? High latency connections can have higher VOIP latency by increasing packet size, or low IP-latency connections can handle higher VOIP latency by increasing packet size? The latter.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. When you're running voip over a T1/E1, you really want to LLQ the VOIP packets because VOIP doesn't like delay (not so much a problem) nor jitter (big problem), nor packetloss (not so much a problem if it's less than a 0.1 percent or so). So combining voip and data traffic on a link that sometimes (more often now when windows machine have a decent TCP window) go full, even just in a fraction of a second, means you either go QoS or do what Skype does, crank up the jitter buffer when there is high-jitter, which means latency for the call goes up. So prioritizing packets in the access and core is good, for access because it's usually low-bandwidth and going to higher bw to remove congestion might mean factor 10 higher bw and a serious cost, in the core it's good to handle multiple faults, if the things that never should happen, you're not dropping your customers VOIP packets when the pipe is full that 0.1% of the time. But, if you take the above model and start to always run your pipes full and use core packet prioritization as an everyday thing to support your lack of core bw, then you're in much bigger doo-doo. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Yes. Best effort should be something to aspire to, not worse than carrier grade -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16/12/2005 00:15:49 To: nanog@merit.edunanog@merit.edu Cc: Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote: I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort' -- and anything less that best effort is _not_ the Internet. [truncated by sender]
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:16:17 + (GMT) Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone? also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queueing.pdf incase you type not paste. Another interesting one is Provisioning IP Backbone Networks to Support Latency Sensitive Traffic From the abstract, To support latency sensitive traffic such as voice, network providers can either use service differentiation to prioritize such traffic or provision their network with enough bandwidth so that all traffic meets the most stringent delay requirements. In the context of widearea Internet backbones, two factors make overprovisioning an attractive approach. First, the high link speeds and large volumes of traffic make service differentiation complex and potentially costly to deploy. Second, given the degree of aggregation and resulting traffic characteristics, the amount of overprovisioning necessary may not be very large ... We then develop a procedure which uses this model to find the amount of bandwidth needed on each link in the network so that an end-to-end delay requirement is satisfied. Applying this procedure to the Sprint network, we find that satisfying end-to-end delay requirements as low as 3 ms requires only 15% extra bandwidth above the average data rate of the traffic. http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2003/papers/10_01.PDF -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need it in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? Here in London, we have noticed that the double-length bendy buses have a harder time moving through city streets than motor scooters do. I suspect that the studies you are referring to show that the key factor is the ratio between the size of pipe and the size of the flows moving through that pipe. diffserv is the devil... and I think the voip product(s) in question aren't meant to be used in places where bandwidth is the constraint :) A single VoIP call is a rather slim volume of packets compared to many other uses of the Internet. If a network doesn't have systemic jitter caused by layer 2 congestion, then one would expect VoIP to work fine on a modern network. Indeed, that is what Bill Woodcock reported a year or so ago in regard to INOC-DBA. --Michael Dillon
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Thus spake Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. When you're running voip over a T1/E1, you really want to LLQ the VOIP packets because VOIP doesn't like delay (not so much a problem) nor jitter (big problem), nor packetloss (not so much a problem if it's less than a 0.1 percent or so). There's two problems, actually. The first is serialization delay, and afflicts any link under about 3Mb/s regardless of utilization. Access speeds are finally climbing past this, but for links where they haven't you need something like MLPPP for fragmentation and interleaving. The second is queueing delay, and that tends to only matter when average utilization passes 58% (someone with a stat background explained why, but my math isn't good enough to explain it). LLQ and WRED solve this well enough for end systems to cope with the result. So combining voip and data traffic on a link that sometimes (more often now when windows machine have a decent TCP window) go full, even just in a fraction of a second, means you either go QoS or do what Skype does, crank up the jitter buffer when there is high-jitter, which means latency for the call goes up. Adaptive jitter buffers are old technology; Skype is hardly the first company to use them. Most phones and softphones have them; it's the gateways at the other end that are usually stuck with static ones. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Adaptive jitter buffers are old technology; Skype is hardly the first company to use them. Most phones and softphones have them; it's the gateways at the other end that are usually stuck with static ones. Personally I find the delay of the mobile phones (200ms or so) annoying enough and with just a static 40ms buffer you end up with 80ms of RTT in the jitterbuffer alone, adding some access technologies like SHDSL or alike it's easily over 100ms, compared to less than 20-30ms for a regular call within a region. I am not a QoS buff, but it packet prioritization does have it's place, even if it's only WFQ. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote: Hi Chris, hey :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher L. Morrow Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 10:29 PM To: John Kristoff Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] snip... Speaking to MCI's offering on the public network it's (not sold much) just qos on the end link to the customer... It's supposed to help VOIP or other jitter prone things behave 'better'. I'm not sure that we do much in the way of qos towards the customer aside from respecting the bits on the packets that arrive (no remarking as I recall). So, what does this get you aside from 'feeling better' ? Not 100% true. Through I agree QoS has little impact in the core that has OCxx non-congested backbone (more comments below). In the edge, it does has its place, as Stephen Sprunk and Mikael Abrahamsson explained/described. I recalled we were busy at one time to find out why one of our _most_ important T1 customer's poor VoIP performance. It turned out his T1 was peaked in those peroid. yup, for t1 customers (or dsl or dial) qos matters only if your like is full when you want to do something with stringent delay/jitter/loss requirements (voip). Possibly a better solution for both parties in the above case would have been MLFR ... possibly. (someone would have to run the numbers, I'm not sure how much the 'qos' service costs in real $$ not sales marked-down-for-fire-sale $$) snip... most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need it in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? There is a little problem here. Most of the studies assume packet arrive rate governed by poision rule. Those data collections were from application sessions--normal distribution when number of sessions--infinity. However, this can only apply to core, specially two tiered core where packet arrive rate are smoomthed/aggregated. I did experied long delay on a DC3 backbone when the utilization reach to 75%~80%. Packet would drop crazy when the link util reach to ~90% (not 100% tied to quenueing, I guessed). That said, i think this is where WRED is used... avoid the sawtooth effect of tcp sessions, random drop some packets and force random flows to backoff and behave. I think I recall WRED allowing (with significant number of flows) usage to reach 95+% or so smoothly on a ds3... though that is from some cisco marketting slides) it only move the threahold in the core from DC3 to OC12 or OC48 (see Ferit and Erik's paper Network Characterization Using Constraint-Based Definitions of Capacity, Utilization, and Efficiency (http://www.comsoc.org/ci1/Public/2005/sep/current.html I don't have the access). I'm not sure the study can applied to customer access edge where traffic tend to be burst and the link capacity is smaller in general. Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS applied to select speed edge interfaces is perhaps reasonable, I'd bet it still depends on the cost to the operator and increased cost to the end-user. it may be cheaper to get a second T1 than it is to do QOS, and more effective. Alternately, customers could use other methods aside from QOS to do the shaping, assuming 'QOS' is defined as tos bit setting and DSCP-like functions, not rate-shaping on protocol or port or source/dest pairs.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 23:31, Randy Bush wrote: would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get their money back? Not taking into account the FDIC, we already have that, since banks are only required to keep 10% of any given depositor's monies. we're selling delivery of packets at some bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false advertising. No, it's called oversubscription, and it is what produces busy signals/dropped packets/ slow response. What ISP doesn't oversubscribe consumer capacity? When the full cost of that packet at that speed is not passed along to the customer, then the only way for the ISP to remain viable (currently) is to oversubscribe. The same occurs at the telco for POTS. The whole QoS angle is just a way to get people to pay for something they think is better, but is really no different in practice. (Fergie's smoke and mirrors). So in essence there is already a 2 tier Internet, as has been said: consumer-grade (oversubscribed), and real (1:1 bandwidth subscription). Real means that if you buy a T1 or an OC3 or whatever, you get what you paid for, to your ISP's PoP. Consumers don't get this; they get a burst bandwidth at the burst rate, but there is no committed rate for consumers. Otherwise I could get an OC-3 full rate for $1,500 per month (in the boonies, no less). Where problems arise is when those who think they are getting 1:1 real Internet (really just a pipe to their ISP) are actually getting oversubscribed bandwidth instead of 1:1. While marketing seems to be just short of sacrilege to many here, the fact is that NOC personnel salaries have to be paid from somewhere, and if your business is selling bandwidth, then your revenue from customers minus cost of said bandwidth minus operational expenses (salaries, capital, power, etc) had better result in a quantity that is greater than zero, or you're going to be unemployed rather soon. If you are selling $50 6Mb/s DSL, and you're paying $10 per Mb/s, then you have a problem, and oversubscription is your solution. Oversubscribing 4 to 1 makes your non-oversubscribed $240 per month for four subscribers for your bandwidth cost only $60 per month, and you now have $140 per month to pay your NOC personnel and turn a profit (or at least break even). The local ISP here is only oversubscribed two to one; I don't see how they are making any money at all, even with fairly high DSL cost, as I've seen the kind of prices their upstream charges for 1:1 rates. Of course, your upstream (if you have one) also has to make their ends meet, too. At the top SFI level, you still have the cost of transit to worry about, with $1,000 per year or more per mile for fiber maintenance; if you have 25,000 miles of fiber you need to generate $25 million per year to keep it maintained, even if you don't have an upstream. Of course, the $35,000 per mile for fiber installation has to be amortized, too, as does that $2 million backbone router on each end of every hop, etc. Bandwidth has to have a cost; otherwise the bandwidth provider will not stay around long. On the operational end, the challenge becomes designing networks that in the presence of ubiquitous oversubscription degrade gracefully and allow certain features to have lesser degradation. Thus QoS. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote: Not 100% true. Through I agree QoS has little impact in the core that has OCxx non-congested backbone (more comments below). In the edge, it does has its place, as Stephen Sprunk and Mikael Abrahamsson explained/described. I recalled we were busy at one time to find out why one of our _most_ important T1 customer's poor VoIP performance. It turned out his T1 was peaked in those peroid. yup, for t1 customers (or dsl or dial) qos matters only if your like is full when you want to do something with stringent delay/jitter/loss requirements (voip). Possibly a better solution for both parties in the above case would have been MLFR ... possibly. (someone would have to run the numbers, I'm not sure how much the 'qos' service costs in real $$ not sales marked-down-for-fire-sale $$) MLFR (you mean FRF.8?) works, but you first need to learn how to do FRTS, which is a nightmare in itself. MLPPP LFI is trivial to set up. However, MLFR/MLPPP only help when paired with an intelligent queueing algorithm; with FIFO and even WFQ they're useless. You've gotta go to CBWFQ/LLQ to get the benefits. it only move the threahold in the core from DC3 to OC12 or OC48 (see Ferit and Erik's paper Network Characterization Using Constraint- Based Definitions of Capacity, Utilization, and Efficiency (http://www.comsoc.org/ci1/Public/2005/sep/current.html I don't have the access). I'm not sure the study can applied to customer access edge where traffic tend to be burst and the link capacity is smaller in general. Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS applied to select speed edge interfaces is perhaps reasonable, I'd bet it still depends on the cost to the operator and increased cost to the end-user. it may be cheaper to get a second T1 than it is to do QOS, and more effective. For some scenarios, yes, but in most environments the peaks would still fill the pipes, just for half the time. And, as we all know, the faster the network gets, the more creative ways people find to fill those pipes. It's a rat race, but your telco salescritter will love you for it. Overprovisioning the last mile is, at least for now, far more expensive than training a monkey to apply a cookie-cutter MLPPP/LLQ config; from the comments here, consensus is the opposite is true in the core. My experience is with large-but-slow networks (thousands of sub-T1 sites) so I can't say how true that is, but it sounds right. Alternately, customers could use other methods aside from QOS to do the shaping, assuming 'QOS' is defined as tos bit setting and DSCP-like functions, not rate-shaping on protocol or port or source/dest pairs. QoS has lots of different meanings, thanks to the marketeers. The one most customers think of, and the only one that's provably wrong, is QoS is a magic wand that gives you free bandwidth. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS Probably. Users, executives and reporters are rarely careful talking about the technical details. They are usually more interested solving a problem. Engineers sometimes get caught up in arguing about the pro's and con's of a particular widget and sometimes miss other ways to solve the real problem. Suppose you wanted your web content to load faster on a user's computer, how would you do it? Could you hire a content distribution network like Akamia to improve the quality of service for your content? Is the Internet a zero-sum game, so if Akamia makes one web site faster does that mean all other web sites must get slower? Instead of paying a CDN, what if an ISP told content providers you could host your content on our server farms close to the end-user connections. If the content provider doesn't pay the ISP to host the content on their network, the content is delivered over the Internet from wherever in the world the content provider data center is located. There are lots of ways to improve the quality of service for some content versus other content. Should ISPs be prohibited from giving a CDN operator space or bandwidth for its servers because they don't have space for every CDN that wants space? Should ISPs be prohibited from operating their own CDN? Doesn't a CDN create an unlevel playing field between content providers that pay to use it over content providers that don't pay for the CDN? If you want to define QoS as a strawman, you can. But it doesn't solve the problem.
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Sean, And let's see: What was the problem again? ;-) Oh, yeah -- some telco execs want to degrade traffic in their networks based on __. (Fill in the blank.) - ferg -- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS [snip] If you want to define QoS as a strawman, you can. But it doesn't solve the problem. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Bingo. Very well stated. - ferg -- Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] On the operational end, the challenge becomes designing networks that in the presence of ubiquitous oversubscription degrade gracefully and allow certain features to have lesser degradation. Thus QoS. [snip] -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Two Tiered Internet
[ SNIP ] This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that with an @cisco or at least an I work for Cisco Marketing disclaimer. -M
Re: Two Tiered Internet
The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer Better QoS, like the subscribers want. What they really mean, I suspect, is killing third party applications that compete with their own. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, QoS for SBC customer broadband will mean the speed we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't. On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ SNIP ] This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever.Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting ofvendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that with an @cisco or at least an I work for Cisco Marketingdisclaimer.-M
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Bingo. What they are really saying is: We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new ways to generate additional revenue. ;-) Cheers, - ferg -- Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer Better QoS, like the subscribers want. What they really mean, I suspect, is killing third party applications that compete with their own. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, QoS for SBC customer broadband will mean the speed we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't. [snip] -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Two Tiered Internet
And not by offering you anything you might want to buy, either, but by setting up wanky little tollbooths.On 12/15/05, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Bingo.What they are really saying is: We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need newways to generate additional revenue.;-)Cheers,- ferg-- Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeplysuspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is gettingobsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer Better QoS,like the subscribers want. What they really mean, I suspect,is killing third party applications that compete with theirown. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, QoS for SBC customer broadband will mean the speed we advertise solong as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shiteif you aren't.[snip]--Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Two Tiered Internet
[ SNIP ] This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that with an @cisco or at least an I work for Cisco Marketing disclaimer. Just because Sean works at Cisco doesn't mean we can't like him though! grin. I still like you Sean. Even if you work for a hardware vendor. Defecting to the hardware vendor side certainly doesn't give you cooties. Well, at least not permanent cooties. Regards, Blaine
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of point-to-point connections with fixed/guaranteed rates. But when I sell Internet, or L3VPN, etc., I'm selling end-to-end packet-switched full-mesh connectivity. In this service, not all endpoints are equal and traffic patterns are not fixed. I.e., the service is flexible. QoS is about giving the customer control over what/how traffic gets treated/dropped. It's not false advertising. That said, if QoS controls are used to enforce the provider's preferences and not the customers' then I might agree with the false advertising label. If the result is to have anti-competitive effects then I might have some harsher labels for it, too. Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32 To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: Fergie; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion or is never busy. s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/ would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false advertising. randy
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. -M
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
If the core is well run (not normally over-utilized) and the endpoints have adequate capacity, then you *can* guarantee the call. (where guarantee represents a quality *approaching* 100%, as defined in SLAs...) I assume we're not talking about poorly-run cores here. So what I think you're getting at is, when you don't control both endpoints (i.e., to ensure they have adequate capacity) then you can't make end-to-end guarantees. This is clearly true, in telephone networks as well as packet networks. But it doesn't lessen the value of QoS mechanisms. To reluctantly further the telephone analogy: If all 23 bearers on my PRI are busy I still might want to allow certain sources to complete calls to me, even if that means dropping an existing call. This is a local function that I can guarantee, which benefits end to end communication even if it doesn't guarantee it. And if I coordinate this local function at both endpoints then I'm back to my first statement, that you can guarantee end to end. Are you suggesting that QoS has no value unless it can do more than this? Or am I misunderstanding you? A more interesting question is how to make end-to-end guarantees between endpoints that are on different cores, assuming the endpoints themselves are under a common control. If the provider overrides customer QoS preferences, is this possible? Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: Hannigan, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 15 December, 2005 16:00 To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. -M
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. Absolutely. But if the carrier tunes their network so you will never get a busy signal when calling into 900 numbers from which they receive a kickback (hosted on their network or just preferred partners), at the cost of a greater likelihood of busy signals for calls which are not as profitable for them, this is enforcing the provider's preferences and not the customers. When carriers start to tune their network so not only do VOIP connections to their own servers get a higher QoS, but also in a manner which tends to *induce* jitter and other 'Q'uality degradation for Skype and Vonage, then it's time for them to lose common carrier protection. Kevin Kadow -- Disclaimer: I no longer am a contractor for SBC, nor any _for-profit_ ISP.
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Hi Benson, Okay -- forget about banks, forget about other comparative analogies -- let's talk about the Internet. I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort' -- and anything less that best effort is _not_ the Internet. I completely agree with this, and I would also add that anything less than best effort is not a QoS frob, it is penalization, no matter what you want to call, and is a Bad Thing (tm). I really don't want to get into a debate on service-level semantics (e.g. WRED, etc.) but I think most reasonable people can understand what I'm trying to illustrate. This thread has gone one far enough as it stands. :-) I think that the knobs are already 'out there' for service providers, etc. to create real 'services', but to create arbitrary services just to protect one's walled garden, and/or to generate revenue (while also penalizing some customers) is something that the market will have to sort out. It always does. Vote with your dollar$. Cheers, - ferg ps. Having looked at QoS issues from the inside-out, outside-in, and various other persepctives, I do know a thing or two about it. :-) -- Schliesser, Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of point-to-point connections with fixed/guaranteed rates. But when I sell Internet, or L3VPN, etc., I'm selling end-to-end packet-switched full-mesh connectivity. In this service, not all endpoints are equal and traffic patterns are not fixed. I.e., the service is flexible. QoS is about giving the customer control over what/how traffic gets treated/dropped. It's not false advertising. That said, if QoS controls are used to enforce the provider's preferences and not the customers' then I might agree with the false advertising label. If the result is to have anti-competitive effects then I might have some harsher labels for it, too. Cheers, -Benson [snip] -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote: I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort' -- and anything less that best effort is _not_ the Internet. ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its backbone is better than Best-Effort. Ok, maybe they aren't the Internet. Internet2 gave up on premium QOS and deployed less-than Best Effort scavenger class. Ok, may they aren't the Internet either. I think that the knobs are already 'out there' for service providers, etc. to create real 'services', but to create arbitrary services just to protect one's walled garden, and/or to generate revenue (while also penalizing some customers) is something that the market will have to sort out. It always does. Vote with your dollar$. Ah, good to see that you agree with Bill Smith from BellSouth. William Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, argues that competitive forces, rather than regulation, are all that's needed to prevent the totalitarian online environment that the web camp fears. We have no intention whatsoever of saying 'You can't go here, you can't go there, you can't go somewhere else', Smith said. We have a very competitive situation with cable. If we start trying to restrict where our customers can go on the internet, we would see our DSL customers defect to cable in droves. But, he added, If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or I can buy a first class ticket from Delta. I've made a choice as to which experience I want. But also realize all companies are acting in their own self-interest, even the companies that have hire lobbyists claiming to be saving the Internet. The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. I agree QOS as defined by marketeers isn't very useful. But that is a strawman argument. Of course, I understand you think its just politics. On the other hand, those same QOS tools are very useful to the network engineer for managing all sorts of network problems such as DOS attacks and disaster recovery as well as more efficiently using all the available network paths. I have no idea how all this will turn out or if there are some dark smoke-filled rooms somewhere I don't know about where the henchmen are plotting. But I would really hate to see the network engineer's hands tied by a law preventing them from managing the network because of some people spreading a lot of FUD. The news articles are filled with lots of speculation about what could happen, but very few facts.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST) Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of averages or something else? I've had to deploy it on a campus network and in doing so it seems like I've tread into territory where few if any big networks are to be found. Nortel apparently removed DiffServ capability for their ISP customers from one of their VoIP product offerings specifically because the customers didn't want it. My impression is that DiffServ is not used by those types of networks you mentioned, but I'd be interested to hear that I'm mistaken. backbone is better than Best-Effort. Ok, maybe they aren't the Internet. Internet2 gave up on premium QOS and deployed less-than Best Effort scavenger class. Ok, may they aren't the Internet either. Scavenger is not currently enabled on Abielene. In fact, no QoS mechanisms are. On the other hand, those same QOS tools are very useful to the network engineer for managing all sorts of network problems such as DOS attacks and disaster recovery as well as more efficiently using all the available network paths. In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of trying to provide service differentiation, things begin to make more sense and actually become much more practical and deployable. John
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST) Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of I think also mostly this applies to private network things as well... which mostly ends up being: backups get 20% of the pipe and oracle-forms gets 70% (or some variation on that mix... what with 8 queues or whatever on the private network you can just go to town :) ) Speaking to MCI's offering on the public network it's (not sold much) just qos on the end link to the customer... It's supposed to help VOIP or other jitter prone things behave 'better'. I'm not sure that we do much in the way of qos towards the customer aside from respecting the bits on the packets that arrive (no remarking as I recall). So, what does this get you aside from 'feeling better' ? averages or something else? I've had to deploy it on a campus network and in doing so it seems like I've tread into territory where few if any big networks are to be found. Nortel apparently removed DiffServ most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need it in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? capability for their ISP customers from one of their VoIP product offerings specifically because the customers didn't want it. My impression is that DiffServ is not used by those types of networks you mentioned, but I'd be interested to hear that I'm mistaken. diffserv is the devil... and I think the voip product(s) in question aren't meant to be used in places where bandwidth is the constraint :) when you back that rack-sized (not kidding) PVG15000 up to your multi-oc-12 connection area you aren't really worried about bandwidth constraints. You may, however, want to heed the documentation provided which says to never, ever, ever connect the equipment to the public network... or not. On the other hand, those same QOS tools are very useful to the network engineer for managing all sorts of network problems such as DOS attacks and disaster recovery as well as more efficiently using all the available network paths. WRED comes to mind for this... sure. stop the sawtooth, make it smooth baby! In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of trying to provide service differentiation, things begin to make more sense and actually become much more practical and deployable. how does qos help with a dos attack? I've struggled with this several times internally, unless you remark everyone (in which case you'll be remarking good and bad and not getting any benefit) I'm not sure it does help... I'd be happy to be shown the error of my ways/thoughts though. Oh, and don't say: Well we qos icmp down to stop the icmp flood damage, silly! of course you do, and your attacker says: Gee icmp isn't working, what about UDP? What about TCP? What about I make my bots make full tcp/80 connections? Oh.. doh! no qos helps that eh? :( I could be wrong though.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT) Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of trying to provide service differentiation, things begin to make more sense and actually become much more practical and deployable. how does qos help with a dos attack? My point is that it's not QoS, it's DoS mitigation. Whatever that means to you, that is the solution I think most people may ultimately be looking for when they say they want QoS. John
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST) Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of I think also mostly this applies to private network things as well... which mostly ends up being: backups get 20% of the pipe and oracle-forms gets 70% (or some variation on that mix... what with 8 queues or whatever on the private network you can just go to town :) ) Speaking to MCI's offering on the public network it's (not sold much) just qos on the end link to the customer... It's supposed to help VOIP or other jitter prone things behave 'better'. I'm not sure that we do much in the way of qos towards the customer aside from respecting the bits on the packets that arrive (no remarking as I recall). So, what does this get you aside from 'feeling better' ? averages or something else? I've had to deploy it on a campus network and in doing so it seems like I've tread into territory where few if any big networks are to be found. Nortel apparently removed DiffServ most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need it in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? You might check slides 35-38 in http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sprintlink_and_mpls.ppt Dave pgpwYFugkpI8h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT) Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of trying to provide service differentiation, things begin to make more sense and actually become much more practical and deployable. how does qos help with a dos attack? My point is that it's not QoS, it's DoS mitigation. Whatever that means to you, that is the solution I think most people may ultimately be looking for when they say they want QoS. ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Hello Dave; This won't open for me. Do you have a pdf of these slides ? Regards; Marshall On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST) Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of I think also mostly this applies to private network things as well... which mostly ends up being: backups get 20% of the pipe and oracle-forms gets 70% (or some variation on that mix... what with 8 queues or whatever on the private network you can just go to town :) ) Speaking to MCI's offering on the public network it's (not sold much) just qos on the end link to the customer... It's supposed to help VOIP or other jitter prone things behave 'better'. I'm not sure that we do much in the way of qos towards the customer aside from respecting the bits on the packets that arrive (no remarking as I recall). So, what does this get you aside from 'feeling better' ? averages or something else? I've had to deploy it on a campus network and in doing so it seems like I've tread into territory where few if any big networks are to be found. Nortel apparently removed DiffServ most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need it in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? You might check slides 35-38 in http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sprintlink_and_mpls.ppt Dave
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. and i wonder who is selling that need? randy
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello Dave; This won't open for me. Do you have a pdf of these slides ? On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? You might check slides 35-38 in http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sprintlink_and_mpls.ppt those would be them.. and dave can grab just the 3 slides in pdf from: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf (or of course anyone else can grab them, but it's dave presentation so :) ) -Chris
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote: ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. and i wonder who is selling that need? the wierd thing is you'd think the telco would just say: Well gosh, sorry we can't help you squeeze 10lbs of poo into your 5lb bag, wanna by a shiney new 10lb bag? or maybe you meant equipment vendors? :)
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:52:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello Dave; This won't open for me. Do you have a pdf of these slides ? On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: that qos is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might have a pointer handy for that? You might check slides 35-38 in http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sprintlink_and_mpls.ppt those would be them.. and dave can grab just the 3 slides in pdf from: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf (or of course anyone else can grab them, but it's dave presentation so :) ) Thanks Chris. Dave pgpeiPMsDxxG6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. and i wonder who is selling that need? the wierd thing is you'd think the telco would just say: Well gosh, sorry we can't help you squeeze 10lbs of poo into your 5lb bag, wanna by a shiney new 10lb bag? or maybe you meant equipment vendors? :) bingo! buy more, and more complex, hardware and you can charge more. what they forget to mention is that income will get blown in opex and capex (with the vendors getting the latter). randy
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote: ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else. and i wonder who is selling that need? the wierd thing is you'd think the telco would just say: Well gosh, sorry we can't help you squeeze 10lbs of poo into your 5lb bag, wanna by a shiney new 10lb bag? or maybe you meant equipment vendors? :) bingo! buy more, and more complex, hardware and you can charge more. what they forget to mention is that income will get blown in opex and capex (with the vendors getting the latter). charge more you say?? I need to talk to our marketting dept!!! :) The world of marketting and sales is so incestuously intertwined among consumers and consumee's ... it's an amazing thing.
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone? also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queueing.pdf incase you type not paste.
RE: Two Tiered Internet
--- Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay. Would your perception of those two scenarios be identical? Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception except you pay, you get priority. Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't. -M
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same network? Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big file on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is infected with Blaster and consuming your Internet bandwidth? Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link. --Michael Dillon
Re: Two Tiered Internet
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay. The only way I know of to offer a premium service on the same network as a non-premium service is to delay non-premium packets. This artificial packet delay is known as Quality of Service or QoS because it degrades the quality of service to some users in order to allow other users unobstructed use of the network. You see the same thing in road networks when the police block certain intersections to allow a parade or an important diplomat to move along the streets with no obstructions. This type of policing can also be used in networks. But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the network without ever being buffered at any of the core network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge your customers a higher fee for such a network than your competitors do, then we have a tiered Internet. This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well. --Michael Dillon
RE: Two Tiered Internet
This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well. If I understand you correctly I highly doubt this is the case. If every customer suddenly was to use the maximum link speed of their access pipes I would be very surprised if all the traffic would be carried. On the subject of tiered Internet you could argue that mobile/celluar access to the Internet is another tier. Regards, Neil
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:54:43 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the network without ever being buffered at any of the core network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge your customers a higher fee for such a network than your competitors do, then we have a tiered Internet. This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well. That's the way all serious providers did IP-backbone engineering when there was no QoS. Local congestion in the access-network would happen from time to time even back in the 90s, but a network with congestion-problems in the backbone would soon be a network with no customers. Even today, it's the superior principle for backbone engineering. Most QoS-handling (and other traffic-engineering) gizmos, although some look good on paper, are too complex and too labour-intensive to offer cost-saving or other operational advantage in large IP backbones. Bandwith in the form of long-haul dark-fiber or colors would have to be much more expensive to change that equation. //per -- Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? All providers in your market would have to agree to do the same thing. Capped services only work for monopoly providers. //per -- Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two Tiered Internet
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link. eeek! I assume you mean tell the customer what DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them do the marking right? The thought of letting customers actually make changes to my edge routers would keep me up at night... -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:41:54 -0800 (PST), David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link. eeek! I assume you mean tell the customer what DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them do the marking right? The thought of letting customers actually make changes to my edge routers would keep me up at night... To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that your access-equipment is able to handle queueing etc (given fool-proof mechanisms that enable self-service and keep your NOC out of the loop of course;). //per -- Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two Tiered Internet
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a disaster of the magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco. Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter how popular tier 1 sites are, a substantial part of the user time will be spent on degraded tier 2 sites. If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? Of course, based on some recent experience this probably means that this will be adopted enthusiastically. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Dec 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Per Heldal wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? All providers in your market would have to agree to do the same thing. Capped services only work for monopoly providers. //per -- Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception except you pay, you get priority. Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't. hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+ bills from telcos and ISPs for data services and internet transit services? --bill -M
Re: Two Tiered Internet
To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that your access-equipment is able to handle queueing etc (given fool-proof mechanisms that enable self-service and keep your NOC out of the loop of course;). Precisely! In today's world, lots of router configuration is not done manually by anybody. There is an OSS system that applies rules to what changes will and will not be done and when they will be done. Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link. Of course, any incoming packet markings should be discarded or ignored once the packets pass the provider's edge router. This is possible today without any special support from router vendors. It relies entirely on operational support systems such as web servers, databases and remote control servers. QoS is for customers, not for network operators! --Michael Dillon
Re: Two Tiered Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception except you pay, you get priority. Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't. hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+ bills from telcos and ISPs for data services and internet transit services? --bill -M Its already a 2 tiered internet (acess network). There is the residential broadband users' internet There is the colo's, datecenter and generally speaking 'buisness' internet. Which one isnt being paid for by its users?
RE: Two Tiered Internet
Marshall Eubanks wrote: If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL services... Cheers, -Benson
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Hello; My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into understanding nuances of what they are being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity) is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, you're crazy. On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL services... A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and complained enough to get an SLA from them. I wish I had one. I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one of their very frequent 15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90% packet loss. When Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that too and try and multi-home (through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP). Hmm, maybe there's a product there... Regards Marshall Cheers, -Benson
Re: Two Tiered Internet
At 05:54 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay. The only way I know of to offer a premium service on the same network as a non-premium service is to delay non-premium packets. This artificial packet delay is known as Quality of Service or QoS because it degrades the quality of service to some users in order to allow other users unobstructed use of the network. Actually, the cable providers have an alternative. Since the cable network really is broadband in the meaning from before it was coopted to mean high speed, cable operators are able to utilize many channels in parallel. If they want their voice traffic to be unimpeded, they could certainly pick up an IP address on a private network space on a different cable channel (i.e. frequency pair) and make use of that. The consumer's Internet service, being on other channels, is unaffected. Yes, the backhaul fiber network would need to be using multiple paths as well to make that work. I have no idea to what extent present cable plants make use of the ability to use multiple channels for data service. Clearly they use it for video carriers, and where there is/was telephone over cable before the present VOIP-based offerings, those also appear to have used separate channels. So, there is a method possible other than packet prioritization. Just tossing a fatter pipe at the customer isn't a solution, however. It'd still get clogged with p2p traffic pushing pirated music and videos among residential users.
RE: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception except you pay, you get priority. Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't. hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+ bills from telcos and ISPs for data services and internet transit services? You don't get priority. :-) -M
RE: Two Tiered Internet
Hi. I agree with your comments re customers. (residential customers, in particular) At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that regulators should put effort into understanding whether the basic service is broken. If it's not broken then perhaps it is reasonable to allow provider-prioritized traffic. (i.e., if the provider offers a good SLA for basic traffic and lives up to it even in the presence of prioritized traffic) On the other hand, if the provider doesn't guarantee a quality basic service then their request to prioritize is in bad-faith; they will effectively be de-prioritizing the basic service. Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36 To: Schliesser, Benson Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet Hello; My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into understanding nuances of what they are being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity) is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, you're crazy. On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL services... A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and complained enough to get an SLA from them. I wish I had one. I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one of their very frequent 15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90% packet loss. When Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that too and try and multi-home (through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP). Hmm, maybe there's a product there... Regards Marshall Cheers, -Benson
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:39:51AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception except you pay, you get priority. Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't. hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+ bills from telcos and ISPs for data services and internet transit services? You don't get priority. :-) -M but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am- paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the Internet is best-effort ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that anymore... i get the choice to buy crap instead of best effort...) Best effort is the top-tier of the QoS/priority pyramid... as sad as that is. and as others have cleverly pointed out, what i really am buying is full employment for the AP departments of telco/isps. :) --bill
Re: Two Tiered Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link. So where would the payback be for this for the last-mile provider? Compared to the pain of setting this up and supporting it, what percentage of customers would actually use something like this? Just trying to educate users on this would be quite challenging. Well, sir, the service allows you to select which of your traffic is important and should get priority... But all my traffic is important! It gets more fun when the medium you use to get to the end customer is a shared medium, with some normal amount of oversubscription. Bob
Re: Two Tiered Internet
At 08:41 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QoS is for customers, not for network operators! --Michael Dillon That is probably the best way I have heard it put before! Since network bandwidth is a zero-sum game, QoS is simply a method of handling degraded or congested service in a graceful manner. John
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:59:15AM -0800, Bob Snyder wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link. So where would the payback be for this for the last-mile provider? Compared to the pain of setting this up and supporting it, what percentage of customers would actually use something like this? Just trying to educate users on this would be quite challenging. Well, sir, the service allows you to select which of your traffic is important and should get priority... But all my traffic is important! It gets more fun when the medium you use to get to the end customer is a shared medium, with some normal amount of oversubscription. Bob since Internet is best-effort ... any overt attempt to reduce this best effort service to explictly degraded service (perhaps due to intentional overprovisioning, causing degraded service) ... -is NOT the Internet- ... its some propriatary, substandard networking technology to get me to the Internet. So i suspect that marketing folks be very clear on what is being sold. --bill
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Daniel Senie wrote: Actually, the cable providers have an alternative. Since the cable network really is broadband in the meaning from before it was coopted to mean high speed, cable operators are able to utilize many channels in parallel. If they want their voice traffic to be unimpeded, they could certainly pick up an IP address on a private network space on a different cable channel (i.e. frequency pair) and make use of that. The consumer's Internet service, being on other channels, is unaffected. Yes, the backhaul fiber network would need to be using multiple paths as well to make that work. I have no idea to what extent present cable plants make use of the ability to use multiple channels for data service. Clearly they use it for video carriers, and where there is/was telephone over cable before the present VOIP-based offerings, those also appear to have used separate channels. Allocating those separate channels for different services means that that bandwidth blocks they consume are off-limits to provide customer IP service. Would it be better to have a smaller amount of bandwidth that's isolated from all other services for normal customer IP service, or would it be better to have a bigger pipe with priority when there's congestion going to services other than normal customer IP service? The answer depends on how much traffic you expect to be prioritized. VoIP traffic at 80kbps probably isn't going to be a huge concern. Tiered services could be, but seperate channels could actually make the problem worse, since bandwidth that had been allocated to the standard services could be permanently allocated to the higher-tiered service to resolve peak load issues, reducing the bandwidth available to the standard service at all times. Bob
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly. So far they seem to be not quite so evil (minus their port blocking for some services, and rate-shaping for other services)... I used them as an example though, really so long as there is another game in town (competition) think the SBC/BS proposals will not last very long. At the very least I'd bet that they won't garner the profits that the SBC/BS execs are hoping will arrive. How do you know your MSO or ISP hasn't been doing this for years? Do ISPs have different levels of congestion on peering links between different networks? Do ISPs have different levels of congestion between peering links and internal links? Do ISPs use different circuits or queues for different types of traffic? Whether your use time division multiplexing, frequency division multiplexing or packet division multiplexing, the effect on congestion is similar. You are creating multiple queues. You don't delay or slow down packets. Routers don't have big enough buffers to delay a packet for milliseconds. Whether you have two queues on one physical interface or two physical interfaces with one queue each, the end effect is the same if you forward different traffic through different paths. The reality is converged or partially converged networks have been using some level of QOS at some layer (MPLS, IP, ATM) for years. CIR, PIR, UBR, CBR, DSCP, TOS, choose your style. Even the PSTN has multiple classes of service for different calls ranging from choke numbers used for radio stations and call-in contests to GETS numbers used by emergency responders. Yes, MSOs and other ISPs are already doing this. The primary difference seems to be the telco's discuss more of their network engineering practices in public.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote: To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a disaster of the magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco. Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter how popular tier 1 sites are, a substantial part of the user time will be spent on degraded tier 2 sites. If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? Of course, based on some recent experience this probably means that this will be adopted enthusiastically. I'm seeing a lot of comments here that appear to be looking at this as a very binary issue -- either it's ok, or it will cause the customers to defect en masse to the competition. This seems to ignore questions of how it would be implemented, and what the competition's offering would be. If I've got a choice between two providers, both of which are offering a 3 Mb/s pipe, but one of them restricts services from other networks to half of that pipe, that's going to effectively be a situation where one provider is only offering half the Internet bandwidth the other offers. On the other hand, there could be a scenario in which one network offered a 3 Mb/s unrestricted pipe, while the other offered a 6 Mb/s pipe, with prioritized traffic potentially eating 2 Mb/s of it. That would still be 4 Mb/s of unrestricted traffic vs. the other provider's 3 Mb/s. In other words, a provider with sufficiently better last mile technology than the competition should be able to do lots of stuff like this and still come out ahead. Providers in markets that are technologically more even might have more trouble. That assumes rate limiting in the last mile. If what's instead being talked about is QoS tagging of last mile packets, that should be completely irrelevant to those who don't use the services that are prioritized. Of course, if they're restricting capacity in the backbone and using QoS there, that may be a different story, but that seems unlikely to be what's being talked about. Backbone congestion doesn't tend to happen much in major American cities these days, but individual DSL lines saturate pretty easily. -Steve
RE: Two Tiered Internet
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat. Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a market forces reality, but that doesn't mean the services aren't under priced. and as others have cleverly pointed out, what i really am buying is full employment for the AP departments of telco/isps. :) You're paying pensions for bankruptcy court employees in perpetuity and Michael Moore documentaries. :) I think the better questions for this thread may be: 1. Why NOT charge for priority access and transit 2. Is it inequitable to anyone, and why? 3. If there is an inequity, does it really matter?
RE: Two Tiered Internet
- Original Message Follows - From: Schliesser, Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED], NANOG nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Two Tiered Internet Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:40:58 -0600 Hi. I agree with your comments re customers. (residential customers, in particular) At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that regulators should put effort into understanding whether the basic service is broken. If it's not broken then flame :- Regulators in what country? Atlantis? BFE? Do you mean the United States internet as opposed to the rest of the world's internet??? /flame scott perhaps it is reasonable to allow provider-prioritized traffic. (i.e., if the provider offers a good SLA for basic traffic and lives up to it even in the presence of prioritized traffic) On the other hand, if the provider doesn't guarantee a quality basic service then their request to prioritize is in bad-faith; they will effectively be de-prioritizing the basic service. Cheers, -Benson -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36 To: Schliesser, Benson Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet Hello; My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into understanding nuances of what they are being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity) is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, you're crazy. On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney , had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline). If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL services... A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and complained enough to get an SLA from them. I wish I had one. I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one of their very frequent 15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90% packet loss. When Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that too and try and multi-home (through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP). Hmm, maybe there's a product there... Regards Marshall Cheers, -Benson
RE: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat. Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a market forces reality, but that doesn't mean the services aren't under priced. I'm not sure how much of a market forces reality this is. At least around here (SBC territory but then what isn't) it is the telcos that are driving down the prices. Cable would be willing to charge reasonable prices (and have generally held the line) if it wasn't for Bell. Chris -- ~~~ Chris Owen~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc ~ www.hubris.net ~ ~~~
Re: Two Tiered Internet
--On December 13, 2005 8:17:43 PM -0800 Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. *IF* they have a choice. In many areas for consumer grade access, you don't. I fully agree that you're not getting the same value/.worth out of a service that behaves like that. The strategy they're proposiing is very anti-competitive and very monopolistic.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am- paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the Internet is best-effort ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that anymore... i get the choice to buy crap instead of best effort...) Best effort is the top-tier of the QoS/priority pyramid... as sad as that is. You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. Who said this had anything to do with the Internet? Instead, this is about additional private network services, which cable companies already do over coax, that telco's want to offer over a multiservice access line in addition to the Internet. Coax can carry over a Gigibit of data, but cable companies usually sell user's less than 10Mbps for Internet data. Cable companies reserve the rest of the their network capacity for private services like HBO, video on demand and voice. Just because part of a physical line is used for Internet service doesn't mean everything going across the same line is the Internet. The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network?
Re: Two Tiered Internet
The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network? Because they're telephone companies. Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For telco's to offer premium service, they have to take from the aggregate capacity. It's a zero sum game, and for the telco's to get more, the subscribers get less. Tony
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: Because they're telephone companies. Oh, that's right. I forgot. They're evil. Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For telco's to offer premium service, they have to take from the aggregate capacity. It's a zero sum game, and for the telco's to get more, the subscribers get less. I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:28:06PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am- paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the Internet is best-effort ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that anymore... i get the choice to buy crap instead of best effort...) Best effort is the top-tier of the QoS/priority pyramid... as sad as that is. You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. Who said this had anything to do with the Internet? well... the press? the telco marketing droids?? --- = Telecoms want their products to travel on a faster Internet = Major site owners oppose 2-tier system = By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | December 13, 2005 = http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ = telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ = = ATT Inc. and BellSouth Corp. are lobbying Capitol Hill for the right = to create a two-tiered Internet, where the telecom carriers' own = Internet services would be transmitted faster and more efficiently = than those of their competitors. -- darn that pesky Internet word keeps cropping up. to borrow a phrase; ... I do not think it means what you think it means... - Princess Bride Instead, this is about additional private network services, which cable companies already do over coax, that telco's want to offer over a multiservice access line in addition to the Internet. Coax can carry over a Gigibit of data, but cable companies usually sell user's less than 10Mbps for Internet data. Cable companies reserve the rest of the their network capacity for private services like HBO, video on demand and voice. Just because part of a physical line is used for Internet service doesn't mean everything going across the same line is the Internet. sure... if thats really the case. The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network? they should not call it the Internet then should they? :)
Re: Two Tiered Internet
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger. I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. Tony
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Tony Li wrote: I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger. I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to give them incentive to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a mere fraction of what is technically possible. Color me unimpressed. -- Jeff McAdams They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_0900aecd80375b69.pdf
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote: I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger. I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. Ditto. No matter how many million IPTV users there are, it's not reaching the area where i live. I'd love Verizon to come into the chunk of the SBC area where i live that is adjancent to their existing service area and attempt to compete with each other. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Marketing. Bah. - ferg -- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_0900aecd80375b69.pdf
Re: Two Tiered Internet
JM Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:45:09 -0500 JM From: Jeff McAdams JM And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the JM state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to JM give them incentive to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a JM mere fraction of what is technically possible. Hear, hear. Interestingly, back in 1997, $local_ilec claimed they were waiting on the tariff to be approved for lower ISDN rates. I suspect such a tariff requires filing for any chance of approval. General observation: Both cable and DSL are available, or neither are. That's empirical; don't ask me for an r-squared calculation. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
You know, I sent an idiotic response to a serious topic, and I shouldn't have -- it is a serious issue which deserves a serious response. Anyone within earshot of The Great State of Texas (tm) should know that the sickening machinations of the incumbent teclo(s) and Cable Co.(s), and their trance-dance lobbying with Texas state legislature in the past year would leave a really, really bad taste in anyone's mouth. Now, before you turn a deaf ear to this, realize that Texas is very much asn incubator for every state in the union, and their PUC's, legislatures, etc., when it comes to overcoming existing obstacles in the incumbent telecommunications marketplace. What we're talking about here has NOTHING to do with technology, but EVERYTHING to do with protecting a revenue stream in the face of dispruptive technolog(y)(ies) that threaten the incumbents. So stop acting like it's a matter of actually introducing REAL methods of traffic metering, QoS, or other REAL technical methods to offer better-than-best effort. What these guys are talking about is penalization. Don't pretend otherwise. To do so is truly disingenious. Also, it's been kind of fun to watch all of the QoS experts come out of the woodwork on this thread to offer their technical genius on how to solve the proverbial problem. Please. This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. In a previous life I also worked for Sprint, so I know what its like for a service provider's marketing department trying to create revenue streams -- they try toi shove stuff down everyone's throat. Some good technology, mostly bad. In any event, this whole 'distinguished service offering' is nothing more than a ruse. - ferg -- Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marketing. Bah. - ferg -- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_0900aecd80375b69.pdf -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Two Tiered Internet
What I'm interested in is how the two service providers will build a two tiered Internet. To our experience, current QoS mechanism ( WRR + multiple_Queue) could not differentiate service quality when bandwidth is overprivisioned. If there is congestion, why should I stay with it while there is another ISP who says their is no congestion in their network ? If hard limited bandwidth allocation mechanism is available, how could they calculate the bandwidth of each service class ? how could they do with the complexity of nework management? How could they do with security problems? Looking at IPTV, I'm not sure where is millions of people use such service; but I do know P2P IPTV application (like ppstream) could provide good quality and multiple TV programs even bandwidth is limited. So, IMO this is game between ISPs, new technology, content providers and internet users. Currently, content providers are the ONLY winner. Joe --- Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote: I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger. I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. Ditto. No matter how many million IPTV users there are, it's not reaching the area where i live. I'd love Verizon to come into the chunk of the SBC area where i live that is adjancent to their existing service area and attempt to compete with each other. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 1GB free storage! http://sg.whatsnew.mail.yahoo.com
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Hannigan, Martin wrote: but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat. Internet end-users are paying a larger share of the costs of the system than broadcast radio or TV end-users are paying (which here in the US is 0%). Broadcast radio and TV is supported by ads placed in the content stream, and by paid-for content. Internet sites are supported by advertising placed in the content and by paid-for content (personal websites on paid hosting) or subscriptions (end-users subscribing to content). Internet users are paying part of the cost for connecting to the network, similar to how cable TV users are paying for the costs of connecting them to a better video delivery system. But neither are paying for content except where cable users pay for premium ad-free channels, or when internet users pay for subscriptions to certain sites or services. (In print media, end users pay primarily for the delivery of the print media and not for the content which is paid for by advertising. Print media subscription rates are plummeting as users switch to getting the content on the web for free, rather than paying for the dead-tree deliveries. Advertising rates and profits are falling as subscription numbers fall.) When and where the Cable TV system has competition, we have seen new services and increased demand for ala carte pricing so that users can elect to pay ONLY for the services they want and need - something that terrifies the CableCos. OTOH there's MetroFi, currently developing an ad-supported system to offer free WiFi in the city of Sunnyvale: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006109.html And Google's plan to offer a similar service in Mountain View (without the screen eating ad): http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/wi-fi-in-mountain-view.html I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone offer similar services for cable or satellite TV which would put additional pressure on the pay to subscribe model and bring these services to users more in the broadcast TV and radio model (free to receive, supported by ads). What it comes down to is that in the long run end-users don't usually choose to pay for media or content services *unless* the services are delivered ad-free AND have compelling content. (Such as HBO and Showtime for film, and more recently XM and Sirius for radio.) So far there are very few services on the internet that qualify so end-users don't expect to pay more than a nominal connection fee to gain access to the internet and for the most part they only subscribe to sites that offer unique, high quality, ad-free content. The only way the TelCos are going to succeed in developing their two-tiered internet is to provide compelling content only in their premium service. Given that past efforts to produce compelling content available on only one network (anyone remember web portals?) have been dismal failures or successes which then failed when there was competition that provided more content (prodigy and aol losing market share as users switch to the internet), I'm expecting similar results from this plan. This would ONLY work if they could get a large content provider to switch to the top tier service and not offer content from that provider on the low tier. Yeah, that'll be the day! This is a plan that benefits the TelCo at the expense of both the end-user and the content provider. I can't see any reason why either party will play along, or any way the TelCo can force or coerce them to play along. Any efforts to urge users or content providers to use the higher tier by degrading the service on the lower tier will just piss off their present lower-tier paying customers who will leave for the competition. This can ONLY work in a market that has NO effective competition or if there is illegal collusion with the competition so that customers have no effective choice. IMHO TelCos need to stop thinking of what they provide as a service and start to think of it as a method. They provide the wires on which other services run. Rent access to those wires for a fixed fee, the SAME fee to all who want to use the wire (including their own service companies). Install newer and faster wires (fiber to the home) or non-wire systems (how about investing in wireless before MetroFi and friends take away the entire connectivity market???) and rent access on those improved access method (wired and wireless systems) for a higher fee. Dump the complicated and expensive metered billing systems and go with simple fixed rate billing which greatly reduces billing and support costs. Stay focused on what they do well (build level 1-2 networks) and stop trying to force their way into markets they don't understand and force customers to buy the services that run on these wires from the TelCo affiliated and owned companies that do a BAD job of providing the
RE: Two Tiered Internet
What I'm interested in is how the two service providers will build a two tiered Internet. The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation. Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which is basically a billing network. I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion control. For example, CO's have call overflow mechanisms to tandem switch points which basically seek out excess capacity and use it as overflow for call termination if and when possible. I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy. -M
The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Martin, You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course. QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist. What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best- effort is somehow good? Never sell it. This vein will come back and bite you guys who think like this. - ferg -- Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'm interested in is how the two service providers will build a two tiered Internet. The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation. Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which is basically a billing network. I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion control. For example, CO's have call overflow mechanisms to tandem switch points which basically seek out excess capacity and use it as overflow for call termination if and when possible. I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy. -M -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Hey there Fergie: Martin, You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course. QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist. What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best- effort is somehow good? Never sell it. This vein will come back and bite you guys who think like this. I'm not sggesting that this be the way the Internet operate at all. The poster asked how this would work if it did (my interpretation) and where there is will (customers) and money (ISP's) there is always a way. The old school in me says never!, but the experience in me says possible. I think it *is* unlikely though. Consider the busy signal approach for a second though. Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion or is never busy. If you have a web server and a limited amount of memory or net you tune down the number of httpd's that are spawned and when they are all busy, your site doesn't answer and you get a 404. That's akin to a busy signal and is already in practice today. If I'm Google, for example, I buy thousands of servers so this does not happen. If I'm just plain old me and I am running some popular faq on my personal site, I accept the 404's because I am not going to pay for 100% performance. They can try again later, or, I can pay for more memory or more network to insure optimal performance. Hope that makes a little more sense. And let me turn the question around to you. If the Internet were to work like this, how would we do it? - ferg -- Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'm interested in is how the two service providers will build a two tiered Internet. The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation. Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which is basically a billing network. I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion control. For example, CO's have call overflow mechanisms to tandem switch points which basically seek out excess capacity and use it as overflow for call termination if and when possible. I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy. -M -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Two Tiered Internet
I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy. given an internet where the congestion is at the edges, where there are no alternate paths, i am not sure i understand your suggestion. fergie's message gets my vote for right-on message of the month. this is all smoke. randy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Two Tiered Internet]
somhow, this esacped into a private thread. i'm pretty sure that there is a fairly high thermal component to this thread and not too many photons... so this is it for me on this thread... - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. Who said this had anything to do with the Internet? well... the press? the telco marketing droids?? It seems to be the press and the Google lobbyist droids trying to stir things up that use the Internet word the most. A problem is some reporters think anything that uses IP (Internet Protocol) means the same thing as the Internet. that is common... in part 'cause you can't ever tell if its -not- part of the Internet. (I note the subject line of this thread talks about a two-tier Internet... which we are both actively responding to... :) If its not Internet, then lets call it what you claim it is, private virtual pipes, some of which touch the commodity Internet and some which run a private, IP-based network for Telcos use only. Right there next to the dedicated copper, lambdas, and glass that they lease to others. Most, but not all, of the telco droids have tried to stay on message, that this is about bringing more competition to video. It is not the Internet, it is not cable TV, it is IPTV. But when people expand the acronym IPTV, it seems to come out as Internet video. Much like VOIP seems to turn into Voice over the Internet, even though a lot of VOIP uses private networks. -IF- we can be assured that the telco/ folks -REALLY- will keep (or cable co) parts of thier network fabric isolated and disconnected from the Internet, and have the ability for random, third-party inspection that these closed, private networks that use IP -STAY- that way, then sure. they should not call it the Internet then should they? :) Maybe it would have helped if the technologists had chosen less similar names for the network (Internet) and the networking protocal (IP). There are lots of networks using IP which are not the Internet. again, its nearly impossible to tell when/if an IP network is or is not part of what might be part of the Internet. Mobil nodes are common and mobil networks are becoming so. Virtually every (save two) IP based network that I have touched in the last 25 years has at one point or another touched other IP based networks... thus becoming part of the Internet... as seen by others. That said, there are many IPbased networks which rarely touch what most think of as the Internet. I've come to the conclusion that the commodity or commercial services Internet is a small subset of the larger Internet. as usual, YMMV. --bill - End forwarded message -
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion or is never busy. s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/ would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false advertising. randy
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Before you complain... It did not require a subscription when I first saw it. On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Blaine Christian wrote: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder. Comcast has been advertising in press releases it gives priority to its voice traffic over its network for a while. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957EDATE= Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling. If you install a Vonage terminal adapter/router, Vonage gives priority to its voice packets over other traffic over a broadband connection. When the various services were separate, there wasn't an issue. DSL data and voice service use different frequencies over the same copper pair. Which meant DSL data bandwidth was limited because the voice frequencies were always reserved for the voice channel. Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same network? Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big file on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is infected with Blaster and consuming your Internet bandwidth? You coaxial cable can support a Gigabit or more of bandwidth, but the cable company only sells you a few Megabits for Internet traffic. The cable company keeps the rest of the bandwidth for other services it sells such as video and voice. The service providers will probably sell you a few Megabits of Internet bandwidth on your Coax/FTTH/DSL line, and use the rest of the bandwidth on the line for other services like video or voice. They may sell the use of the extra bandwidth above the level you bought for Internet service to other companies. You may have only bought 5 Mbps service from your cable company, but the cable company may sell a burstable service to a Video On Demand company which lets them download movies at 30 Mbps above your normal bandwidth cap. However, the VOD company may have only scavenger class bandwidth, which means if you are using the cable bandwidth for something else the VOD download won't interfere with it. Does Google treat ICMP packets equally as web packets?
Re: Two Tiered Internet
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957EDATE= Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling. Comcast doesn't have good public Internet access? That's a shame. I commend their bravery in admitting that only their internal network is advanced. /sarcasm John
Re: Two Tiered Internet
Sean, I think you are skirting the real issue here. Prioritizing traffic in order to provide reliable transport for isochronous services is one thing; Using QoS features to de-prioritize traffic from a competitor or a company who refuses to pay to access your customers is something completely different. These are not just paranoid ravings from the tin-foil brigades: two telecom CEO's have recently floated trial balloons proposing exactly this scenario. What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? Joe On 12/13/05 12:26 PM, Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder. Comcast has been advertising in press releases it gives priority to its voice traffic over its network for a while. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/12-12-2 005/0004231957EDATE= Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling. -- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
Re: Two Tiered Internet
--- Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay. Would your perception of those two scenarios be identical? -David -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant- (speaking only for myself, btw...) David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Two Tiered Internet
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. Tony
Re: Two Tiered Internet
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at reasonably close to the same end cost users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing... I do think it'd be funny for SBC or BS to do this sort of thing and get massive customer loss when their customers defect to cable modem networks.
Re: Two Tiered Internet
I know I would. Regards Marshall On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Tony Li wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. Tony
Re: Two Tiered Internet
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at reasonably close to the same end cost users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing... There are a few things that this trend would get involved with. 1) It pushes the cost of peering to the content providers, essentially bypassing the underlying upstream/transit networks. The upstream/transit networks that are essentially getting disenfranchised might react by not peering with premium networks that are trying to pull their customers from using their network. 2) The only way this scenario (prioritization) makes any difference is when there isn't sufficient capacity within the premium network. If there is sufficient capacity, this is no real issue. However, for example, assuming this were enabled today, a network would have no incentive whatsoever to upgrade its networks -- provided that the customer pain/deprioritized network traffic is low enough. (A ratio that can be experimentally determined). In the example where end users get 6Mb/s for $50/month. It is conceivable that as part of this upgrade/premium service for end users... they'd get 60Mb/s downstream for $50/month. The network could provide this service at no increased operational cost because it only expects to push (whatever they currently push) of deprioritized traffic. (say 6mb/s assuming no over subscription). They could then cover the costs (and profits) of this 60mb/s premium service through the fees of the so-called premium content pushers. And thus, they could make the argument that no one is being harmed and in fact the end users gain Except that as the non-premium traffic levels of their end users grows... they suffer. The network's answer? Pay for premium access aka paid transit aka level-2 peering.. 3) The good news is that the RBOCs haven't learned how to run IP networks cost-effectively. Their costs of implementing this so-called tier-2 network will far exceed the fees their model tells them they will get from it. Remember when they first got into the Internet Access business? They all tried to create their own premium content-portals, search engines, what-have-you. Then they outsourced/sold that function to networks like MSN. I doubt the majority of their users even care. AOL tried to keep their network proprietary. Didn't keep them swimming either. They can do anything they want with their own bits on their own network (eventually, the FCC will concede). The problem is that anytime you deprioritize the traffic of others for no other reason than because it isn't yours... well that smells a lot like restraint of trade. The RBOCs become gate keepers not underlying bit pushers. What about the censorship issues? If they won't accept *insert bad site here [porn, hate, etc]* /premium/ network's payments to push traffic across their network, but they will accept it (as they currently do) on a deprioritized level?? Its a mess and they'll spend billions and it will cause some pain, and it'll eventually be abandoned. [My prediction based on what little is known about this thing today and history]. DJ
