Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

Ben Niven-Jenkins <> Tue, 16 November 2010 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB833A6B69; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.681
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTTcmZeD1CKN; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305E43A68F2; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <>) id 1PIOha-0007HL-2j; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:48:14 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:48:12 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Cc:, httpstreaming <>,, Ingemar Johansson S <>, "Mike Hammer \(hmmr\)" <>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSEJAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:47:32 -0000

On 10 Nov 2010, at 22:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Mike Hammer (hmmr) wrote:
>> 3) The people that build and operate the networks will double (quadruple?) their investments for no additional return out of the goodness of their hearts.
> No, they're going to do it because if they don't give the customers what they promised, their customers are going to leave. This is if there is a functional market and customers actually have a choice of providers. I realise this is not the case in parts of the world, but that doesn't mean we should solve that by technical means, that's a political and regulatory problem, it doesn't have any technical solution.
> Let's not forget that if you're congesting your core and distribution, you're not delivering what your customers have purchased. Period.

It depends what the customer has purchased. Many times what the customer *thinks* they have purchased and what they have *actually* purchased are not the same.

> Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
> Congestion is acceptable on the customer access, it's not acceptable in the core. That means that any flows/pakets that should yield, are within a single customer domain, and thus in the customers own interest.

I used to work at a large PTT. Our design was to make the core non-blocking (i.e. does not drop packets except under multiple failures) and constrain the backhaul[1] (and to a lesser extent the access line itself).

Your sentence above seems to ignore the backhaul? Which is strange as the backhaul is a significant proportion of the overall cost and larger than the cost of the core itself.


[1] The bit that transports & aggregates many access connections into the core.