Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of the users; how can network operators manage the network so every user receives a fair share of the network capacity?
I don't know if that's a fair argument. If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want. 24x7. As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time". All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHIXiYq1pz9mNUZTMRAnpdAJ98sZm5SfK+7ToVei4Ttt8OocNPRQCgheRL lq9rqTBscFmo8I4Y8r1ZG0Q= =HoIx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time".
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
I think you have confused a circuit switch network with a packet switched network. If you want a specific capacity 24x7x365 buy a circuit, i.e. T1, T3, OCx. It costs more, but it will be your capacity 100% of the time. There is a reason why shared capacity costs less than dedicated capacity.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time".
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
I think you have confused a circuit switch network with a packet switched network.
If you want a specific capacity 24x7x365 buy a circuit, i.e. T1, T3, OCx. It costs more, but it will be your capacity 100% of the time.
There is a reason why shared capacity costs less than dedicated capacity.
The problem is that there's no "dedicated capacity" on the Internet. If I wander out to $HIGH_QUALITY_ISP_OF_THE_DAY and purchase a T1, yes, the point-to-point circuit between me and $HQIOTD's POP is dedicated capacity. But the "dedicated" probably ends there. It's possible, but unlikely, that a certain amount of the bandwidth between $HQIOTD's POP and $HQIOTD's peering hub is dedicated bandwidth set aside for my T1. Yet it would be fairly common for such a circuit to be a DS3, with maybe 50-100 T1 customers sitting on the far side. That probably isn't dedicated bandwidth, then. Now, as you get off $HQIOTD's network, the problem escalates. Does that T1 guarantee, for example, 1.5 megabits of bandwidth out to my GPRS modem on my laptop? :-) If you want a specific capacity 24x7x365 *FROM* one point *TO* another, then by all means, get a T1. It is absolutely correct that this is dedicated capacity. However, I am tired of hearing that "if you want guaranteed Internet, get a T1." It doesn't map that way. Internet is inherently shared, for any meaningful definition of Internet. Buying a T1 doesn't guarantee you 1.5 megabits of capacity to the destination of your choice. It may buy you a circuit where your ISP cares more about you, and works harder to make sure you get your bandwidth, but that's not due to any technical requirement. The real issue isn't transmission technology, but oversubscription, and what sort of service you've promised to users. Users who buy a "T1" will expect to be able to use most or all of it from time to time, and at the prices they usually pay, the ISP will usually sit up and pay attention if it's a problem. You can buy a business class DSL where you get that same level of service - and the same sort of bandwidth "commitment". I can absolutely, positively build you an ISP that guarantees full bandwidth for every user from the CPE to the ASN border. (I seriously doubt that it will be economically feasible, currently, but anyways..) The problem is that even with that, the instant data leaves the ISP network, you can no longer guarantee capacity. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want.
24x7.
As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time".
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
What I don't quite get is this, and this is probably skirting "operational" and more into "capacity planning" : * You aren't guaranteed 24/7 landline calls on a residential line; and everyone here should understand why. * You aren't guaranteed 24/7 cellular calls on a cell phone; and again, everyone here should understand why. So please remind me again why the internet is particuarly different? The only reason I can think of is "your landline isn't marketed as unlimited but your internet is" .. Adrian (Who has actually, from time to time, received "congested" signals on the PSTN and can distinguish that from "busy".)
It would seem that the state of NY agrees with you: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20981 "The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the internet for laptop computer users. Attorney General's investigation found that Verizon Wireless prominently marketed these plans as "Unlimited," without disclosing that common usages such as downloading movies or playing games online were prohibited. The company also cut off heavy internet users for exceeding an undisclosed cap of usage per month. As a result, customers misled by the company's claims, enrolled in its Unlimited plans, only to have their accounts abruptly terminated for excessive use, leaving them without internet services and unable to obtain refunds." Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk> -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 1:19 AM To: sean@donelan.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of the users; how can network operators manage the network so every user receives a fair share of the network capacity?
I don't know if that's a fair argument. If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want. 24x7. As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time". All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHIXiYq1pz9mNUZTMRAnpdAJ98sZm5SfK+7ToVei4Ttt8OocNPRQCgheRL lq9rqTBscFmo8I4Y8r1ZG0Q= =HoIx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Ah, but the reality is that you *think* you're paying for something, but the operator never really intended to deliver it to you. If anything, we need better full-disclosure, preferably voluntarily, and if not that way, legislatively required. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 12:19 AM To: sean@donelan.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of the users; how can network operators manage the network so every user receives a fair share of the network capacity?
I don't know if that's a fair argument. If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want. 24x7. As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time". All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHIXiYq1pz9mNUZTMRAnpdAJ98sZm5SfK+7ToVei4Ttt8OocNPRQCgheRL lq9rqTBscFmo8I4Y8r1ZG0Q= =HoIx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
participants (6)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Frank Bulk -
Jamie Bowden -
Joe Greco -
Paul Ferguson -
Sean Donelan