Comments on: Network Neutrality and QoS http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-34258 tramadol Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:54:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-34258 <p>81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-51617 tramadol Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:54:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-51617 <p>81e31de21f46 Hi <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav">http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav</a> tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-51616 Richard Bennett Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:32:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-51616 <p>QoS isn't a solution to persistent bandwidth scarcity, it's a solution to the effects that bursty traffic (such as file downloads) have on streams with modest bandwidth requirements but tight jitter requirements. And bandwidth isn't a solution to jitter, in many cases it makes it worse by dumping more traffic into the next segment. All you accomplish with over-provisioning is a relocation of the bottlenecks, and only that temporarily.<br><br>The Internet is more and more a mixed-use network, and that means QoS is increasingly important.</p> QoS isn’t a solution to persistent bandwidth scarcity, it’s a solution to the effects that bursty traffic (such as file downloads) have on streams with modest bandwidth requirements but tight jitter requirements. And bandwidth isn’t a solution to jitter, in many cases it makes it worse by dumping more traffic into the next segment. All you accomplish with over-provisioning is a relocation of the bottlenecks, and only that temporarily.

The Internet is more and more a mixed-use network, and that means QoS is increasingly important.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-34257 Richard Bennett Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:32:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-34257 <p>QoS isn't a solution to persistent bandwidth scarcity, it's a solution to the effects that bursty traffic (such as file downloads) have on streams with modest bandwidth requirements but tight jitter requirements. And bandwidth isn't a solution to jitter, in many cases it makes it worse by dumping more traffic into the next segment. All you accomplish with over-provisioning is a relocation of the bottlenecks, and only that temporarily.</p> <p>The Internet is more and more a mixed-use network, and that means QoS is increasingly important.</p> QoS isn’t a solution to persistent bandwidth scarcity, it’s a solution to the effects that bursty traffic (such as file downloads) have on streams with modest bandwidth requirements but tight jitter requirements. And bandwidth isn’t a solution to jitter, in many cases it makes it worse by dumping more traffic into the next segment. All you accomplish with over-provisioning is a relocation of the bottlenecks, and only that temporarily.

The Internet is more and more a mixed-use network, and that means QoS is increasingly important.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-51615 Jim Lippard Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:23:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-51615 <p>We don't do QoS within public Internet traffic--all public Internet traffic is classified as best effort, and there are no standards for inter-provider QoS (though we do map customer classes of service into our own, and maintain their markings across our network and across any partner networks that we use to reach locations where we don't have our own facilities, such as China and India).</p> We don’t do QoS within public Internet traffic–all public Internet traffic is classified as best effort, and there are no standards for inter-provider QoS (though we do map customer classes of service into our own, and maintain their markings across our network and across any partner networks that we use to reach locations where we don’t have our own facilities, such as China and India).

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-34256 Jim Lippard Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:23:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-34256 <p>We don't do QoS within public Internet traffic--all public Internet traffic is classified as best effort, and there are no standards for inter-provider QoS (though we do map customer classes of service into our own, and maintain their markings across our network and across any partner networks that we use to reach locations where we don't have our own facilities, such as China and India).</p> We don’t do QoS within public Internet traffic–all public Internet traffic is classified as best effort, and there are no standards for inter-provider QoS (though we do map customer classes of service into our own, and maintain their markings across our network and across any partner networks that we use to reach locations where we don’t have our own facilities, such as China and India).

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-51614 Tim Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:11:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-51614 <p>Does that technology also allow QoS for particular protocols/TCP streams within the public Internet traffic? And is it something that could be feasibly scaled to the Internet as a whole?</p> Does that technology also allow QoS for particular protocols/TCP streams within the public Internet traffic? And is it something that could be feasibly scaled to the Internet as a whole?

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-34255 Tim Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:11:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-34255 <p>Does that technology also allow QoS for particular protocols/TCP streams within the public Internet traffic? And is it something that could be feasibly scaled to the Internet as a whole?</p> Does that technology also allow QoS for particular protocols/TCP streams within the public Internet traffic? And is it something that could be feasibly scaled to the Internet as a whole?

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-51613 Jim Lippard Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:22:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-51613 <p>Global Crossing has been using QoS effectively for years. We use it in two ways--first, two allow customers to prioritize their own traffic; second, to prioritize our backbone traffic, which carries voice, video, IP-VPN, and public Internet as separate logical overlays over the same physical core. The QoS in the second case doesn't come into play often, because we try to make sure there is always sufficient bandwidth. But fiber cuts and denial of service attacks occur, and when they do, we would rather drop packets from public Internet traffic than voice calls.</p> Global Crossing has been using QoS effectively for years. We use it in two ways–first, two allow customers to prioritize their own traffic; second, to prioritize our backbone traffic, which carries voice, video, IP-VPN, and public Internet as separate logical overlays over the same physical core. The QoS in the second case doesn’t come into play often, because we try to make sure there is always sufficient bandwidth. But fiber cuts and denial of service attacks occur, and when they do, we would rather drop packets from public Internet traffic than voice calls.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/comment-page-1/#comment-34254 Jim Lippard Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:22:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/31/network-neutrality-and-qos/#comment-34254 <p>Global Crossing has been using QoS effectively for years. We use it in two ways--first, two allow customers to prioritize their own traffic; second, to prioritize our backbone traffic, which carries voice, video, IP-VPN, and public Internet as separate logical overlays over the same physical core. The QoS in the second case doesn't come into play often, because we try to make sure there is always sufficient bandwidth. But fiber cuts and denial of service attacks occur, and when they do, we would rather drop packets from public Internet traffic than voice calls.</p> Global Crossing has been using QoS effectively for years. We use it in two ways–first, two allow customers to prioritize their own traffic; second, to prioritize our backbone traffic, which carries voice, video, IP-VPN, and public Internet as separate logical overlays over the same physical core. The QoS in the second case doesn’t come into play often, because we try to make sure there is always sufficient bandwidth. But fiber cuts and denial of service attacks occur, and when they do, we would rather drop packets from public Internet traffic than voice calls.

]]>