Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation
"Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> Tue, 10 June 2008 01:03 UTC
Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E88B3A6831; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7AB3A67AD for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.367
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.882, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_NETPROD=0.111]
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 3wKp1Lq2ZS9i for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.59]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A913A6848 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.46681161; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:03:01 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:03:01 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:02:23 -0400
Message-ID: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602045CBA87@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: RE: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation
Thread-Index: AcjIQ5uAAh1PJ7m7QBOwii8s1IaCawCMvQUQAAc28rA=
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: p2pi@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2008 01:03:01.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[BACD3E50:01C8CA95]
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0113711511=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Inline below - sorry it took awhile, but it was a long email that touched on many things. Jason ________________________________ From: Robb Topolski [mailto:robb@funchords.com] In particular, I'm concerned with possible scenarios such as someone who is mid-upload of 1100 European vacation pictures (all at 8 Megapixel) when her husband has a medical emergency. She dials 9-1-1 on Vonage or whatever non-Comcast VOIP device. Comcast delays and drops her packets as the new system places her VOIP call is behind long packet queues created by other activity in her neighborhood. First, I would say that it seems that this example user should configure their home gateway router to allocate a specific amount of LAN bandwidth for their VoIP service, so that their VoIP service would not be overwhelmed by and negatively affected by the upload of several GB of digital photos. Many VoIP services instruct their customers to install their device directly to the broadband connection, and then connect their router behind this device. That device then makes decisions about traffic flowing from the customer's network and would ensure that the customer's VoIP service would not be negatively affected by any other other applications. Secondly, without any form of network management (current or future), the heavy use of whatever apps by a few people at times of congestion would interfere with the same VoIP call. Nevertheless, in terms of when the bits get to our network, I can tell you that we have asked our engineers and our vendors to address this concern, which has been foremost in our minds. <snip>... many consumer gateway-router devices marketed under different brands use a QoS engine by Ubicom. These devices determine the upload stream size either as manually configured by the user or measured automatically when the router reboots. These devices will not function properly if the bandwidth it believes it is reserving is suddenly made unavailable by the network. In summary, best-effort traffic is the baseline traffic expectation and developers of Internet products do not expect a situation where a network operator has invented a "worse than best-effort" traffic class -- nor should they. As we stated up at MIT, our trial is NOT applying rate limits to the subscribers. So for example, we're NOT taking a 16Mbps/2Mbps customer down to 1Mbps/512Kbps. The user's bits we are talking about are simply assigned a lower QoS for some period of time, assuming (1) that the network is in a near-congestion state and (2) the user has crossed a specific threshold of usage for a specific period of time (both conditions must be met). But perhaps more importantly, devices that "assume" that the network's bandwidth is a fixed constant are flawed devices. First, congestion can occur anywhere along the path through the Internet, including parts beyond the ISP network and therefore outside of the ISP's control. Second, bandwidth can fluctuate for "good" reasons too (ref: Powerboost). How would such devices or software adapt to something like a wireless network, where bandwidth is probably the most variable due to the user moving in relation to base stations, etc.? It would seem that devices and software should, within reason, be able to adapt to normal ups and downs of bandwidth to a user or device. The users are harmed because their network is behaving strangely and they have no way of knowing why. I am not sure how you know that a user will perceive the network as 'behaving strangely' at such a time. It would seem reasonable that one of the things a trial should ascertain is whether users even notice this at all. It is clearly one of the things we'll be studying very closely and gathering data on. Innovation is harmed because the access and transit networks continue to behave unexpectedly. It isn't the network operator who will get the call about the online game or VOIP application that is behaving poorly, it's the software publisher. Actually, you may be surprised to discover that the ISP is often the first call for many of these customers. On a related item, for example, we recently observed complaints on our user forums, and on the forums at BroadbandReports that a certain web video site was performing poorly (a thread in which you and I both participated). Despite posts from users from other ISPs that would indicate the problem was not limited to Comcast users, we engaged engineering resources to study the problem, to check our network, and then contact that web site's NOC, open a ticket with them, and assist them in troubleshooting what appears to have been a routing problem on their network. This is in fact a regular and normal part of business for us, whether it is ensuring that web video sites work well for our customers, whether they can send email to certain domains, or their online games and VoIP services work well on our network. Comcast is sending the signal that the operators of the access networks are going to tamp down the natural demand-based growth of the internet is as uninteligent as a chip manufacturer saying that they're done making faster chips. So why would someone release a bandwidth-hungry product into that environment? Just as the world's largest chip manufacturers enable innovation by trying to stay as far ahead of developers ability to suck-up MIPS as possible, I would expect someone serious about leading in the business of broadband should be doing the same. Unfortunately, you have made a few statements to the effect that our investment in our network is largely static, meaning that every few years we decide whether or not to invest in the network. That could not be further from the truth. As our public financial statements show, we invest substantial sums of money on an ongoing basis to continuously improve all parts of our network. When parts of the network approach pre-set utilization numbers, a well tested process kicks in automatically to upgrade these portions of the network. In addition to these normal-course-of-business investments, we have large generational investments in things like DOCSIS 3.0. Further, we continue to develop and release new services that benefit our customers as well. Our network is a valuable asset and no rational company in our position would choose not to continue to invest in, care for, and improve such an asset. I'd also prefer to stick to the tech talk here, rather than the econ stuff. :-) Thanks for asking for feedback. I'm sorry it is not at all positive. While I do recognize efforts at more transparency and user notification as good things, the method itself fails the standards compatibility test. I am not sure I understand what standards compatability test you are referring to. ?? (Unless of course this is the earlier RFC you referred to in a different email.) Anyhow Robb, at this stage, I'd like to turn my attention to working with my colleagues to conduct our trials, find the best way to manage data flows to provide the best possible experience for all of our users, and let them be the judge. In the meantime, we will also continue our efforts as participants in this IETF list (and in the upcoming BoFs and other WGs at IETF-72) and our continuing effort to have a constructive technical dialogue with the broader community. Thanks, Jason Robb Topolski
_______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Livingood, Jason
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Robb Topolski
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Robb Topolski
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Joe Touch
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Joe Touch
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Richard Bennett
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Robb Topolski
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Richard Bennett
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Livingood, Jason
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Livingood, Jason
- Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation Robb Topolski