3 ms·

> You're welcome to attempt to argue that there's an unavoidable equivalence between QoS as everybody defines it and the other concept you're trying to equate i

> You're welcome to attempt to argue that there's an unavoidable equivalence between QoS as everybody defines it and the other concept you're trying to equate it to, but you have to actually make that argument, not just declare the definition of QoS to have changed because you don't like what it means. QoS still stands for Quality of Service. QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and popularized by Dave Rand/Avi Freedman to describe that QOS establishes which packets are to be dropped on the floor first. QOS might work OK on networks with microspikes but it completely breaks on networks that are > 20% oversubscribed. If I were made to pick between positions of Dave Rand and Avi Freedman and positions of all people supporting Net Neutrality, I would go with the first two as those people actually built networks. > Net neutrality doesn't require you to ignore the past 20+ years of research into QoS. This only works within a single AS. It has been demonstrated when a pair of crazy dudes built a Sprintlink on a top of ANS without ANS' knowledge. > The technical requirements of having large, reasonably direct links between big producers and big consumers does not say anything about whether Netflix has to negotiate with Comcast and Verizon directly, or whether they can outsource those concerns to Level 3. That's purely in the domain of business shenanigans. It does. Without that you end up with Enron.

wtallis 9y ago
> QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and popularized by Dave Rand/Avi Freedman to describe that QOS establishes which packets are to be dropped on the floor first. So you're still trying to re-define the literal text of what the "QoS" initialism expands to, and now you're also trying to narrow the scope of QoS as defined by everybody else. There's more to QoS than just deciding which packet to drop. You also have to decide when to drop a packet. This second aspect is what makes QoS not a zero-sum game when faced with real-world traffic. > QOS might work OK on networks with microspikes but it completely breaks on networks that are > 20% oversubscribed. What exactly do you mean by "microspikes"? 20% oversubscription is laughably small compared to the disparity between my 1GbE LAN and my 50Mbps WAN connection. QoS makes a world of difference for the users on my LAN. Oversubscription just means you'll actually get the opportunity to notice the difference between having QoS and having a dumb FIFO. Nobody's actually asking for a circuit-switched Internet, or anything that would require a circuit-switched Internet.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Ok, lets do basics. You have 1Mbit/sec worth of traffic and the max connection speed is 10Mbit/sec. Packet loss is at 0% and latency is speed of light + speed of forwarding. Do you need QoS in this case?
  - notyourday 9y ago
    I love the downvote on the parent. Essentially, this is the problem of NN supporters - they just don't have a clue. 2+2 is 4. And 4 is smaller than 5. Sorry, kids.

wtallis 9y ago

> QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and popularized by Dave Rand/Avi Freedman to describe that QOS establishes which packets are to be dropped on the floor first. So you're still trying to re-define the literal text of what the "QoS" initialism expands to, and now you're also trying to narrow the scope of QoS as defined by everybody else. There's more to QoS than just deciding which packet to drop. You also have to decide when to drop a packet. This second aspect is what makes QoS not a zero-sum game when faced with real-world traffic. > QOS might work OK on networks with microspikes but it completely breaks on networks that are > 20% oversubscribed. What exactly do you mean by "microspikes"? 20% oversubscription is laughably small compared to the disparity between my 1GbE LAN and my 50Mbps WAN connection. QoS makes a world of difference for the users on my LAN. Oversubscription just means you'll actually get the opportunity to notice the difference between having QoS and having a dumb FIFO. Nobody's actually asking for a circuit-switched Internet, or anything that would require a circuit-switched Internet.

notyourday 9y ago
Ok, lets do basics. You have 1Mbit/sec worth of traffic and the max connection speed is 10Mbit/sec. Packet loss is at 0% and latency is speed of light + speed of forwarding. Do you need QoS in this case?
- notyourday 9y ago
  I love the downvote on the parent. Essentially, this is the problem of NN supporters - they just don't have a clue. 2+2 is 4. And 4 is smaller than 5. Sorry, kids.