Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation
Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Sat, 07 June 2008 02:56 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 1FEB63A68C1; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:56:03 -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 EC5313A6905 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 CSrfATvSMGUg for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003413A68C1 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (fruitcake [192.150.186.11]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m572u7bf001930; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4CB75CEA-FE7E-4398-A1B3-A03DBF5063D3@icsi.berkeley.edu>
From: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
To: Robb Topolski <robb@funchords.com>
In-Reply-To: <3efc39a60806061909n11a65eafnce88df7c73c30639@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:56:08 -0700
References: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602045CBA5E@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> <3efc39a60806061909n11a65eafnce88df7c73c30639@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
On Jun 6, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Robb Topolski wrote: > My feedback is that discrimination based on user-history is no > better than protocol-discriminatory behavior. Just as the Internet > Standards do not lead developers to expect a network that > discriminates against a protocol, those same standards do not > prepare developers for a network that is discriminating based on > nebulous concepts of "fairness." THis is a RIDICULOUS notion. And "Fairness" doesn't have to be nebulous. "In the periods of congestion, when there are N users competing for traffic, no user will get more than 1/N - epsilon of the available bandwidth, measured as a running average over 10 seconds and 10 minutes". A nice concrete definition, that would INSTANTLY prioritize small flows over large flows, and interactive flows over bulk flows, when examined between users. Its what users really expect when you talk about "fairness". > 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. > So you'd rather her not be able to make a VoIP 911 call because someone ELSE on the same subnet is running BitTorrent grabbing "Indiana Jones and the Latest McGuffin"? In fact, this is EXACTLY the case why ISPs need to do both INTER user fairness (to ensure that everyone gets some reasonable allocation, because TCP DOES NOT PROVIDE THIS AS THE APPLICATIONS ARE USED!) and INTRA-user shaping to prioritize small flows (a simple "prioritize smaller flows" instantly ensures that VoIP still works). Yes, we can all dream of the utopia where the picture upload knows that its a picture upload and the VoIP call knows its a VoIP call and the networking signaling takes care of itself. But with all the crappy NAT boxes (eg, which randomly inject RST packets into active flows!), crappy end host software, and crud in between, if you want the VoIP call to have priority, the ISP must infer that it is a VoIP call and treat it as such, because otherwise the old devices, with their many limitations, will mess up your signaling. But until then, INTER user fairness is essential, because without it, the net can't operate in the flat-rate billing model. > Another set of scenarios pertains to users, applications, or devices > reserving bandwidth that should be available to them within their > teir, and the unexpected malfunction when the bandwidth that they > purchased is not available. If you want a DEDICATED 10 Mbps, rather than a statistically multiplexed 10 Mbps, pay for it! It costs ~$1000 a month or so for a reason. Or pay-per-bit, in which case the ISP would be happy to not do any traffic shaping at all, because your bit is worth the same as your neighbors. But in the flat rate world, heavy users traffic is less valuable to the ISP, and damaging to the light users. Remember, you may have 5000+ users sharing a single 1 Gbps uplink. Yes, they have a "16 Mbps" download, but it only works because not everybody is downloading at full rate at the same time. And notions of network enforced fairness should not mess up the dream of devices which do proper scheduling: NO network device should, or CAN assume that the bandwidth is fully committed to it. Otherwise, why would you have congestion control? _______________________________________________ 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