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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 11 November 2010 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C578F3A6A7C; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ELVhgI+sPs5G; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E783A6A7F; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 34FE69C; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:15:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3368B9A; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:15:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:15:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <hmmr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F1154@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111806430.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F106701E2@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F1067054D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC180E504600@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F168772C1@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <EAA2CFBF-9434-4E52-A586-7AE5F665A9DF@apple.com> <1104E0EB-CBAD-4001-962F-9D5F8B856D42@nokia.com> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$@iridescentnetworks.com> <1E1ED4EA-7CB5-4A86-BD3F-B1F5F72EF456@netflix.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0C1F@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <EF84DC37-8CB6-4DB7-85AC-E091D90FF075@apple.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0CA2@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011102303170.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F10D0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111616310.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F1154@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:29:25 -0800
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>, conex@ietf.org, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSEJAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <jose_javier.garcia_aranda@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:15:03 -0000

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Mike Hammer (hmmr) wrote:

> I think the crux of our disagreement here is the difference between what 
> it takes to be an ISP and what it takes to be an access provider.  The 
> economics are different.  Apples and oranges.  Saying it works for 
> oranges means it makes sense for apples is a non-sequitor.

For me an ISP is one who runs active equipment, L2 and up. Sometimes ISPs 
own L1 as well. What do you mean by it?

> <Start political view>
> It is nice that you have a regulated monopoly of L1 in your market, but

It's not a monopoly. Well, the copper is mostly, but the fiber isn't.

> However, comparing blocking (dial-tone means nothing, busy signal does)
> of QoS guaranteed telephone links with non-QoS based congestion is
> self-contradictory.  You are in essence saying that on the one hand
> providers should not have the tools to provide QoS guarantees and on the
> other hand slapping them for not being able to provide a QoS guarantee.
> Now how fair is that?

I don't want QoS guarantees, I want *all* my packets delivered, 
expediently, regardless if my neighbour is filling up his pipe or not. I 
have paid for it, and I want it DELIVERED. The postal office doesn't get 
to choose which of my letters it's ok to delay or throw away, they should 
just deliver them. Same with my ISP.

> I would not be so quick to deride the advertizing as false as not very 
> clear, but I do think there could be better education of the public. 
> (Have you never tried to explain this to a non-techie and watched their 
> eyes glaze over?)

That's why the IETF should work on tools to show this to people, not give 
ISPs tools to screw their customers.

> As for treating traffic equally, you apparently don't care much about
> real-time interactive applications.  That is your choice.  But, please
> don't impose that on everyone.

I am fine with packet prioritization within my access line. I have AQM on 
my own access line, because it makes my access line perform better for my 
packet mix (prioritizes my VoIP and ssh before my data heavy TCP 
sessions).

The problem I'm having here is that most talk is not about how to make the 
customers access line behave better for the customer, it's to have certain 
customers traffic be lower prioritized in the distribution and core, so 
ISPs can oversubscribe more without customers being able to notice too 
much.

I resent that.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se