NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv?
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org> ----- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:44:37 -0400 From: Dave Farber <email@example.com> Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org To: ip <email@example.com> 445C559C-B6BC-11DF-8DC2-A921B2A2FC0D: Begin forwarded message: > From: Christian Huitema <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: September 2, 2010 12:09:56 PM EDT > To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ip <email@example.com> > Subject: RE: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > There is nothing self-evident about the need for prioritization of some part of the traffic. Yes, voice communication requires low latency. But low latency is beneficial to many other applications, from video games to stock trading, and in fact to pretty much every application. Low latency is also correlated with the availability of bandwidth. Indeed, Richard mentions that high definition video conferences require 10 Mbps, with no mention of link latency. A network connection tends to have two basic states, under-provisioned when applications get neither low latency nor high bandwidth, and over-provisioned when applications get both. Discrimination and prioritization only makes sense in the gray area when there is not enough resource for everybody, but carving out a little space for a few privileged users might work. > > > > From: Dave Farber [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:43 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Richard Shockey <email@example.com> > Date: September 1, 2010 1:01:07 PM EDT > To: firstname.lastname@example.org, 'ip' <email@example.com> > Subject: RE: [IP] Fwd: net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > For IP if you wish. > > > > Mike you pointed out several things that have been obvious to those of us in the Internet Engineering Community for some time. First packet discrimination for various reasons, including congestion control, have been part of the Internet Protocol suite since its inception. It’s not just DIFSERV its is the core MPLS networks at the heart of most modern carrier networks that could be affected if the proposed rules are not clearly understood. > > > > ATT today filed a ex parte statement along these lines today. > > > > http://www.politechbot.com/docs/att.paid.prioritization.letter.fcc.083110.pdf > > I don’t want to debate policy or the competition issues here, but it is self evident that there are some applications that use IP networks that are highly sensitive to packet latency and Voice and Telepresence/Point to Point Video are first among them. The Cisco Telepresence applications in particular generally require setting up a 10M per second MPLS circuit point to point to achieve anything like a QoS. > > My own guess is that nearly 40% of all US Voice traffic is on IP networks at some point in transmission now and with the next generation LTE/IMS/SIP mobile networks that will rise to over 70% and yes its all “managed” IP traffic. > > In addition it also seems self evident that emergency service communications that use IP networks will need priority labeling for obvious reasons. Congestion control has been part of the analog PSTN since its inception, that is why you get fast busy signals some time and the USG has the GETS system in place for priority access to the PSTN for Emergency Communications. > > There has been a substantial lack of technical input to the Net Neutrality discussion many of us hope this will change ASAP. > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Mike Liebhold <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: August 30, 2010 7:24:29 PM EDT > To: Dave Farber <email@example.com> > Subject: net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > [for IP if you choose] > > Hi Dave, > > A colleague and I are struggling to understand the nuances of the net neutrality debate, and are wondering if anyone on IP can help us. > > We are trying to understand the inter-relationships between net neutrality policies, QoS, differentiated services for applications like burst download for bulky files, guaranteed medium quality voip, high quality teleconferencing, or streaming HD across the heterogenoous Internet. If diff-serv capabilities are - not- allowed, under the currently debated net neutrality regimens, how would telepresence services like Cisco's be able to reserve routes across the internet offering a low-latency, low jitter session? > > What kinds of tiered services are allowed now, prohibited now, would be possible or prohibited under different policy outcomes? > > It's a messy issue that requires clear thinking, good understanding to take an informed perspective. > > Any plain english explanations would be greatly appreciated. > > Many Thanks, > > Mike Liebhold > > > > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----