Re: [81attendees] sucky Delta hotel network (and bufferbloat)

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

Even in the most overprovisioned network, congestion occurs with each natural disaster.  The last extremely widespread and dire reminder in the US happened in 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  However smaller incidents where capacity is temporarily lost (for hours or days) occur almost continuously.

There is an issue with voluntarily marking traffic as real time and cheating that I'd rather not go into on *this* list.

[btw - though interesting, we're drifting off on a tangent.]

Curtis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:81attendees-
> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:50 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [81attendees] sucky Delta hotel network (and bufferbloat)
> 
> I fail to see a better argument for implementing QoS than what happened
> to the Delta Hotel in QC. I agree that QoS has been somewhat
> bastardized by network operators and used only for extracting a premium
> for things that should work anyway.
> 
> Arguing that every network should always be overprovisioned encourages
> wasteful behaviour on all parts and puts many players in an impossible
> position. It might be not so impossible in the US/Canada (although even
> there Delta Hotels showed us that it can also happen), but it's
> definitely the case in other regions where BW costs are still quite
> high.
> 
> Pretending that congestion does not exist will not make it disappear,
> and arguing that the cure for congestion is overprovisioning creates a
> situation where networks will always experience periods of poor
> perceived quality, as congestion and provisioning happen on different
> time scales.
> 
> Granted there can be "good" players who always invest ahead of the
> curve, but, let's be honest here, they are the minority.
> 
> Dropping packets is a bad thing. However, dropping packets blindly (as
> in pretending congestion does not exist) is much worse. The network
> should avoid dropping packets at all costs, but if it has to drop, then
> it should do it smartly and avoid making the situation worse.
> 
> I do believe there is a management problem in the same sense as there
> is with CGNs and port forwarding, which has lead to the creation of
> PCP. It is basically a remote management protocol allowing customer-
> provider interaction (ATM UNI anyone ??? :-)))) ). Well, maybe we could
> do something for QoS. Phoning your ISP each time you need to forward a
> port is every bit as impracticable as phoning the ISP to create a QoS
> queue.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> On 8/4/11 12:30 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I didn't want to jump on this but I agree with your point.
> >
> > QoS in providers today is used to prioritize packets for people
> paying a lot more than others for such things as VPN services.  The
> rest get usually extremely good "best effort" service as has been the
> case for most providers who have survived over the last decade or two
> (survived in some form or another, generous buyouts in the mid to late
> 1990s not withstanding).
> >
> > There can be improvement.  Good to hear that there is interest again.
> The bufferbloat discussion and work and the mention of transport area
> activity is a symptom of interest and activity regarding doing things
> better in the host, CPE, and access/edge devices.
> >
> > Curtis
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:81attendees-
> >> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:25 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [81attendees] sucky Delta hotel network (and
> >> bufferbloat)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/3/2011 5:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> qos is about whose/which packets to drop.  i am not paid to drop
> >>> packets, i am paid to deliver them.
> >>
> >> Excellent.
> >>
> >> Let's ignore capacity limits and congestion completely.  The knee of
> >> the curve is a waste of our efforts.
> >>
> >> Think of how much simpler life would be if we paid no attention to
> >> downsides.
> >>
> >> Armies would never give thought to retreat.  Armies are there to
> >> advance, not retreat.
> >>
> >> Carry this further and they would not have to worry about soldiers
> >> getting injured.  Armies are for hurting the other guys, not getting
> >> hurt.
> >>
> >> The medical profession would never have to worry about patients
> dieing.
> >>
> >> Investors would never have to worry about the market going down.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be great if a clever sound bit really did eliminate the
> >> need to worry about unpleasant realities?
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>    Dave Crocker
> >>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >>    bbiw.net
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 81attendees mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees
> > _______________________________________________
> > 81attendees mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees
> 
> --
> Carlos M. Martinez
> LACNIC I+D
> PGP KeyID 0xD51507A2
> Phone: [phone] ext. 4419