NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv?
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <email@example.com> ----- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:23:02 -0400 From: Dave Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? Reply-To: email@example.com To: ip <firstname.lastname@example.org> E5C47602-B6CC-11DF-BD05-39AB4A3287EA: Begin forwarded message: > From: Mike Liebhold <email@example.com> > Date: September 2, 2010 3:02:36 PM EDT > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Cc: ip <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re net neutrality vs. diff-serv? > > After reading a lot of online and offline expert comments to my original post, I am coming around to the the view that David Reed suggested, that only two fundamental tiers of service are really necessary, one is best effort, for most internet traffic and the other is a guaranteed low latency service ( Whether costs could or should be variable is an open issue, based on service requirements for emergency links, voip, 2-way video, realtinme sensor or actuator nets.nets. and machine to machine connections for adhoc computing clusters or grids in the cloud..... etc.) > > I also now see that in the absence of of an internet standard practice for differentiated services currently to implement the end to end guarantees for a service like Cisco telepresence, either the service has to employ a private contractual agreement with all traversed networks to reserve a route and to give priority transit through all routers probably using a flavor of MLPS implemented in Cisco's software stack. > > Or... the service must operate entirely with a network controlled end to end by by one operator. > > Also, I'm beginning to see that these issues are somewhat orthoganal to the questions of net neutrality where network service operators would discriminate costs for acces for some business reason independent of the technical requirements of isochronous services. > > Many thanks to everyone for your thoughtful comments. > > Mike > > > > On 9/2/10 4:42 AM, Dave Farber wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Richard Shockey <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> Date: September 1, 2010 1:01:07 PM EDT >>> To: email@example.com, 'ip' <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> 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 <email@example.com> >>> Date: August 30, 2010 7:24:29 PM EDT >>> To: Dave Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> 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 -----