NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Fwd: Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
Gotta learn to hit the "reply all" button . . . ack. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mischa Beitz <mischa@beitz.org> Date: Nov 9, 2007 4:52 AM Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose To: Phil Karn <karn@ka9q.net> Phil, On the contrary. it doesn't need to be made clear, and shouldn't be. I couldn't disagree more with the attitude many take re QoS. For some in the NN community, the QoS argument for prioritization seems to have been (wrongly) ceded to the telcos. I, personally, think closer inspection and understanding of the problem suggests it's a mistake. What, for example, do you mean by "definitely need?" When Gary Bachula of the Internet2 project testified before congress that "Giving a preference to the packets of some potentially degrades the transport for everyone else" and further that, "For a number of years, we seriously explored various "quality of service" schemes, including having our engineers convene a Quality of Service Working Group. All of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth" he was pointing out that from an engineering perspective, QoS is a terrible approach. Capacity trumps QoS every time. We can go into the nitty-gritty of network costs, last-mile scarcity, VoIP, CALEA/emergency needs, etc. etc. but, in general, I think this group and the NN community in general should accept that NN may just be an umbrella under which we can all generally gather and pursue a common cause. That said, I love these debates and would be more than happy to defend and advocate the "QoS is unnecessary" position. On Nov 8, 2007 4:51 PM, Phil Karn <karn@ka9q.net> wrote: > Robb Topolski wrote: > > > Using the Comcast P2P interference as an example, in this case, > > Comcast has degraded the performance of a non-favored application. > > > > The end result is the same. > > I think it needs to be made clear that the issue is not prioritizing > some traffic at the expense of others. We definitely need that; the guy > who says Road Runner is degrading his web surfing because he runs Bit > Torrent is a perfect example of the need for QoS. The issue, of course, > is *who gets to decide* which traffic is more or less important on a > user's own link. > > _______________________________________________ > NNSquad mailing list information: > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > -- Mischa Beitz http://mischa.beitz.org -- Mischa Beitz http://mischa.beitz.org