HI Jose, None of my objections in this case are purely technical. The problem with these solution is that although technical feasible, it leaves out the one person that should have some saying on which traffic gets compressed or not: the user.
I really do not expect users configuring access lists so that traffic from a certain port eta compressed. Or trusting a DPI with some pre‹configured policies that could be hit and miss. It would be good if user or app could have a way to convey preference of which app should be compressed. This brings me to an interesting point: Let¹s suppose XBOX gaming traffic compressed and bandwidth is reduced by 20%. Netflix detects there is much more bandwidth and TCP opens its window to engulf that new 20% available. You are mostly back to where you were. So, if you go throughout the trouble of compressing some traffic, would that need to be couple with some protection? On 11/27/13, 3:58 AM, "Jose Saldana" <[email protected]> wrote: >One question about this. Our idea is to list some possibilities to be used >for a TCM optimizer in order to select the flows to optimize. Some >examples: > >- DPI. However, some people would say that it is against network >neutrality, >and it may also be difficult if the flow is encrypted. > >- Selecting according to IPs and port numbers. For example, if a flow has >a >destination IP belonging to a game company, it is a clear candidate. This >would be possible if there is an agreement between the ISP and the game >company. > >- The packets include specific diffserv values. > >- Automatic detection based on statistics of Inter-packet time and packet >size have also been proposed. They are not against neutrality: >T. T. Nguyen, G. Armitage, P. Branch, S. Zander, ³Timely and continuous >machine-learning-based classification for interactive IP traffic,² >IEEE/ACM >Trans. on Networking, 20(6), pp 1880-1894, 2012. > >What do you think about these possibilities?
