5 ms·

> Traffic shaping of saturated links sounds like a waste of time and resources when it's so much easier to just upgrade the hardware. It's cheaper too! It also

> Traffic shaping of saturated links sounds like a waste of time and resources when it's so much easier to just upgrade the hardware. It's cheaper too! It also happens to be the fucking purpose of the ISP (to provide adequate bandwidth for their customers). This is a very naive comment. For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product.

wtallis 10y ago
> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than expected usage is to just start dropping packets where there's congestion. That doesn't imply or require traffic shaping.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > just start dropping packets where there's congestion Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair? I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. Isn't any backbone link in a sense a way of shaping traffic? The old pattern (from point A to B, say) may have been less efficient than the new pattern (using the new link). The link makes economic sense to install simply because there is demand for bandwidth from A to B. If there weren't, a link would have been installed elsewhere instead. The price of the new link is passed along to downstream and upstream providers. Assuming that each ISP has a shaping model in place that is generally fair, is there really any difference between these three things: - the ISP shopping upstream providers based on SLA committments for traffic X - the ISP imposing QoS that addresses the quality experienced by customers using traffic X - the ISP investigating upgrading networking hardware to allow for superior handling of traffic X I'd argue that in every case the ISP has a cost and a benefit. In the case of the QoS change, the cost is that some customers might be slightly worse off (those who used traffic Y but never used traffic X).
  - kelnos 10y ago
    > Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. That half of it isn't the problem, and I doubt anyone would argue against reasonable things that make it easier for a provider to increase their network capacity. The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important. But simply by virtue of YouTube's market share, an economic incentive exists to install backbone links that help route YouTube's traffic (as opposed to others'). In other words, if two backbone links might be installed, the one whose outcome makes access to Youtube more reliable is more likely to be installed than one that makes unknown startup's service more reliable. In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping).
      - wtallis 10y ago
        > In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping). A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth. Traffic shaping on top of that could only have the effect of meaning that a YouTube user will get more bandwidth than their Netflix-using neighbor even if they're both paying for the same service and both content providers have CDN nodes at the same local peering point. That's not adapting to demand, that's artificially distorting the market.
        grandalf 10y ago
        > A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth. I think this statement is in effect a straw man, since the relevant consideration for QoS is the timing of consuming that bandwidth. If you mean instantaneous bandwidth, then you are saying that both Youtube customers and Netflix customers should be able to use a circuit that they primarily use for watching video to also be equally optimized for real time protocols. If you argue that a VOIP customer should be able to place a call with the absolute minimal latency the network can provide, even if it means that video content will (on average) buffer for an extra second, that is not an example of a fair system, just one that is extremely friendly to VOIP. Why shouldn't someone be able to start a Skype competitor that offers latency characteristics for audio calls that rivals POTS latency? As it stands, Skype unusable for low latency coms both because of protocol/codec design and typical network characteristics. So, I think that unless you enthrone modern "typical" characteristics as ideal then it's hard to argue that imposing restrictions of what shaping approaches can and should be utilized is somehow qualitatively neutral, rather than simply benefitting incumbent interests.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  > the normal way to cope with larger than expected usage is to just start dropping packets where there's congestion. And lo and behold, that's what ISP's have always offered to consumers. There's a reason connections are always advertised as "up to 50Mbps" instead of "50 Mbps", hell, even my "business" connection with the local cable company has absolutely no guarantee beyond "we'll have someone out to repair your service within 4 hours".
  - IshKebab 10y ago
    No it isn't. The "up to" is because the last mile is over copper wires which are variable so not everyone will get the same speed.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      ISPs will generally not sell you a plan that advertises throughput in excess of the achievable modem sync speed, unless your achievable speed is already below their lowest tier of service. AT&T won't let you sign up for 18Mbps DSL if you live 2km from a DSLAM that doesn't even have ADSL2+ equipment. The "up to" provision is because their backhaul capacity is less than the sum of the last-mile connection speeds.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      My last mile is 1 GBps fiber. I have a choice of a hundred or so ISPs over that fiber. The cheapest ones drop to single-digit megabit speeds during peak hours because the ISPs have such oversubscribed interconnections.
revelation 10y ago
And people are perfectly fine with that! Define a service level, any level, then you have a product to sell. But the current situation, where they sell "up to" whatever the last mile will sustain and then don't ever upgrade backbones, don't add interconnects, that particular fraud can not go on. A market doesn't work when vendors can sell you a product, lock you in and face no repercussions when they don't deliver even 10%.
OraclesDyn388 10y ago
With respect, I see your opinion as the naive one. Qualia and all that... The whole argument against "net neutrality" is plainly spoken as: A financial scheme to create a "new market" that I'll call "packet tollbooths." The financialists run the world, so we'll carve out these new schemes that benefit the wealthy more than humanity. When we could simply build newer, cheaper, higher capacity hardware, and keep installing it. Which we're going to do to some extent anyway. The extent is also determined more by financialists than the public and their needs. Needs which could be articulated plainly by engineers and those that know how technology works. But again, they're pushed aside to serve their financialist masters as well. It's another class based division, which shits on democratic process. "Can't pay the toll? Slow lane for you! Enjoy Netflix Potato quality streams."

wtallis 10y ago

> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than expected usage is to just start dropping packets where there's congestion. That doesn't imply or require traffic shaping.

grandalf 10y ago
> just start dropping packets where there's congestion Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair? I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. Isn't any backbone link in a sense a way of shaping traffic? The old pattern (from point A to B, say) may have been less efficient than the new pattern (using the new link). The link makes economic sense to install simply because there is demand for bandwidth from A to B. If there weren't, a link would have been installed elsewhere instead. The price of the new link is passed along to downstream and upstream providers. Assuming that each ISP has a shaping model in place that is generally fair, is there really any difference between these three things: - the ISP shopping upstream providers based on SLA committments for traffic X - the ISP imposing QoS that addresses the quality experienced by customers using traffic X - the ISP investigating upgrading networking hardware to allow for superior handling of traffic X I'd argue that in every case the ISP has a cost and a benefit. In the case of the QoS change, the cost is that some customers might be slightly worse off (those who used traffic Y but never used traffic X).
- kelnos 10y ago
  > Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. That half of it isn't the problem, and I doubt anyone would argue against reasonable things that make it easier for a provider to increase their network capacity. The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important. But simply by virtue of YouTube's market share, an economic incentive exists to install backbone links that help route YouTube's traffic (as opposed to others'). In other words, if two backbone links might be installed, the one whose outcome makes access to Youtube more reliable is more likely to be installed than one that makes unknown startup's service more reliable. In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping).
    - wtallis 10y ago
      > In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping). A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth. Traffic shaping on top of that could only have the effect of meaning that a YouTube user will get more bandwidth than their Netflix-using neighbor even if they're both paying for the same service and both content providers have CDN nodes at the same local peering point. That's not adapting to demand, that's artificially distorting the market.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth. I think this statement is in effect a straw man, since the relevant consideration for QoS is the timing of consuming that bandwidth. If you mean instantaneous bandwidth, then you are saying that both Youtube customers and Netflix customers should be able to use a circuit that they primarily use for watching video to also be equally optimized for real time protocols. If you argue that a VOIP customer should be able to place a call with the absolute minimal latency the network can provide, even if it means that video content will (on average) buffer for an extra second, that is not an example of a fair system, just one that is extremely friendly to VOIP. Why shouldn't someone be able to start a Skype competitor that offers latency characteristics for audio calls that rivals POTS latency? As it stands, Skype unusable for low latency coms both because of protocol/codec design and typical network characteristics. So, I think that unless you enthrone modern "typical" characteristics as ideal then it's hard to argue that imposing restrictions of what shaping approaches can and should be utilized is somehow qualitatively neutral, rather than simply benefitting incumbent interests.
snuxoll 10y ago
> the normal way to cope with larger than expected usage is to just start dropping packets where there's congestion. And lo and behold, that's what ISP's have always offered to consumers. There's a reason connections are always advertised as "up to 50Mbps" instead of "50 Mbps", hell, even my "business" connection with the local cable company has absolutely no guarantee beyond "we'll have someone out to repair your service within 4 hours".
- IshKebab 10y ago
  No it isn't. The "up to" is because the last mile is over copper wires which are variable so not everyone will get the same speed.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    ISPs will generally not sell you a plan that advertises throughput in excess of the achievable modem sync speed, unless your achievable speed is already below their lowest tier of service. AT&T won't let you sign up for 18Mbps DSL if you live 2km from a DSLAM that doesn't even have ADSL2+ equipment. The "up to" provision is because their backhaul capacity is less than the sum of the last-mile connection speeds.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    My last mile is 1 GBps fiber. I have a choice of a hundred or so ISPs over that fiber. The cheapest ones drop to single-digit megabit speeds during peak hours because the ISPs have such oversubscribed interconnections.

revelation 10y ago

And people are perfectly fine with that! Define a service level, any level, then you have a product to sell. But the current situation, where they sell "up to" whatever the last mile will sustain and then don't ever upgrade backbones, don't add interconnects, that particular fraud can not go on. A market doesn't work when vendors can sell you a product, lock you in and face no repercussions when they don't deliver even 10%.

OraclesDyn388 10y ago

With respect, I see your opinion as the naive one. Qualia and all that... The whole argument against "net neutrality" is plainly spoken as: A financial scheme to create a "new market" that I'll call "packet tollbooths." The financialists run the world, so we'll carve out these new schemes that benefit the wealthy more than humanity. When we could simply build newer, cheaper, higher capacity hardware, and keep installing it. Which we're going to do to some extent anyway. The extent is also determined more by financialists than the public and their needs. Needs which could be articulated plainly by engineers and those that know how technology works. But again, they're pushed aside to serve their financialist masters as well. It's another class based division, which shits on democratic process. "Can't pay the toll? Slow lane for you! Enjoy Netflix Potato quality streams."