3 ms·
I think it's faster for flow control and packet filtering, not just faster in general. The illustration states that P2P traffic is problem to be solved by this
by hendler 17y ago
I think it's faster for flow control and packet filtering, not just faster in general.
The illustration states that P2P traffic is problem to be solved by this router. Article also states:
"How Flow Routing Works
Flow managers keep track of streams of packets and can protect voice and video transmissions while reducing peer-to-peer traffic."
"Worse, peer-to-peer (P2P) services, used to download movies and other large files, are eating more and more bandwidth. P2P participants may constitute only 5 percent of the users in some networks, while consuming 75 percent of the bandwidth."
Also seems like this would make tiered internet easier in general. Doesn't this router have big implications on the Net Neutrality debate?
- yungchin 17y agoThe way I read it, it can also contribute to improving neutrality: you can now try to commission the same amount of bandwidth to each user. Whereas with individual package-handling a user could impact other users by sending lots of packages, now these would be treated as a group belonging to one ID. It's also less murky then deep packet-inspection...
- extension 17y agoTiered access requires particular connections to be statically limited. That is already easy to do. This device applies limits dynamically based on throughput and duration, which seems pretty fair and neutral to me. What I don't understand is how it distinguishes between audio/video streams and P2P traffic. I would think them pretty similar without inspecting packets.
- lil_cain 17y agoNumber of streams/user would give you a fair chance of telling which is which for most users.