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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL) wrote:

>   Just a different approach. Think in a traffic jam. I know it would be 
> nice to live in a wonderful world with no jams, but they happen. Know 
> compare you, going back home from work, and an ambulance with someone 
> dying inside. Everybody gets away to let ambulance drive first. And 
> that's OK.

When there is a traffic jam due to an accident it's ok. Where there is LA 
style traffic jams 12 hours of the day, that's not ok.

>   Now think on Internet. You are playing a Real-Time game and your 
> neighbours are just downloading files. They can afford some amount of 
> traffic loss (+delay/jitter) since TCP retransmisions will do the trick 
> (just will take a little longer to get the job done) while you cannot 
> afford losing (+delaying/jitterin) your traffic because if it happens, 
> your opponent will blow you away from the arena. That's the point, all 
> traffic flows are NOT the same and need different SLAs.

It would help the customer to get different treatment of his/her flows on 
the access. It would help the ISP and not the customer to do the same in 
the distribution/core. Who do we want to help? Is it the end user or is it 
the ISP? In the discussions in CONEX I mostly see people wanting to help 
the ISP, not the end user.

> - Enables network operators to generate more revenue for 
> "over-requirements". I dont think real-time was in mind whe Internet was 
> created and we need to provide ISPs with new tools like this.

"over-requirement" as in "I want to actually get what you promised to 
deliver to me"?

I don't buy it.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]