Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?

> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >> So your recommendation is that universities,
enterprises and ISPs simply 
> >> stop offering all Internet service because a
few particular application 
> >> protocols are badly behaved?
> >
> > They should stop to offer flat-rate ones anyway.
> 
> Comcast's management has publically stated anyone who
doesn't like the 
> network management controls on its flat rate service
can upgrade to 
> Comcat's business class service.
> 
> Problem solved?

Assuming a "business class" service that's
reasonably priced and featured?
Absolutely.  I'm not sure I've seen that to be the case,
however.  Last
time I checked with a local cable company for T1-like
service, they wanted
something like $800/mo, which was about $300-$400/mo more
than several of
the CLEC's.  However, that was awhile ago, and it isn't
clear that the
service offerings would be the same.

I don't class cable service as being as reliable as a T1,
however.  We've
witnessed that the cable network fails shortly after any
regional power
outage here, and it has somewhat regular burps in the
service anyways.

I'll note that I can get unlimited business-class DSL
(2M/512k ADSL) for
about $60/mo (24m), and that was explicitly spelled out to
be unlimited-
use as part of the RFP.

By way of comparison, our local residential RR service is
now 8M/512k for 
about $45/mo (as of just a month or two ago).

I think I'd have to conclude that I'd certainly see a
premium above and
beyond the cost of a residential plan to be reasonable, but
I don't expect
it to be many multiples of the resi service price, given
that DSL plans
will promise the bandwidth at just a slightly higher cost.

> Or would some P2P folks complain about having to pay
more money?

Of course they will.

> > Or do general per-user ratelimiting that is
protocol/application agnostic.
> 
> As I mentioned previously about the issues involving
additional in-line 
> devices and so on in networks, imposing per user
network management and 
> billing is a much more complicated task.
> 
> If only a few protocol/applications are causing a
problem, why do you need 
> an overly complex response?  Why not target the few
things that are 
> causing problems?

Well, because when you promise someone an Internet
connection, they usually
expect it to work.  Is it reasonable for Comcast to
unilaterally decide that
my P2P filesharing of my family photos and video clips is
bad?

> >> A better idea might be for the application
protocol designers to improve 
> >> those particular applications.
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> 
> It took a while, but it worked with the UDP audio/video
protocol folks who 
> used to stress networks.  Eventually those protocol
designers learned to 
> control their applications and make them play nicely on
the network.



... 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 Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
>> If only a few protocol/applications are causing a
problem, why do you need
>> an overly complex response?  Why not target the few
things that are
>> causing problems?
>
> Well, because when you promise someone an Internet
connection, they usually
> expect it to work.  Is it reasonable for Comcast to
unilaterally decide that
> my P2P filesharing of my family photos and video clips
is bad?

So what about the other 490 people on the node expecting it
to work?  Do 
you tell them sorry, but 10 of your neighbors are using
badly behaved 
applications so everything you are trying to use it for is
having 
problems.  Maybe Comcast should just tell the other 490
neighbors the 
10 names and addresses of poorly behaved P2P users and let
the neighhood
solve the problem.

Is it reasonable for your filesharing of your family photos
and video 
clips to cause problems for all the other users of the
network?  Is that 
fair or just greedy?

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Eric Spaeth wrote:

> They have.   Enter DOCSIS 3.0.   The problem is that
the benefits of DOCSIS 
> 3.0 will only come after they've allocated more
frequency space, upgraded 
> their CMTS hardware, upgraded their HFC node hardware
where necessary, and 
> replaced subscriber modems with DOCSIS 3.0 capable
versions.   On an 
> optimistic timeline that's at least 18-24 months before
things are going to 
> be better; the problem is things are broken _today_.

Could someone who knows DOCSIS 3.0 (perhaps these are
general 
DOCSIS questions) enlighten me (and others?) by responding
to a few things 
I have been thinking about.

Let's say cable provider is worried about aggregate upstream
capacity for 
each HFC node that might have a few hundred users. Do the
modems support 
schemes such as "everybody is guaranteed 128 kilobit/s,
if there is 
anything to spare, people can use it but it's marked
differently in IP 
PRECEDENCE and treated accordingly to the HFC node",
and then carry it 
into the IP aggregation layer, where packets could also be
treated 
differently depending on IP PREC.

This is in my mind a much better scheme (guarantee
subscribers a certain 
percentage of their total upstream capacity, mark their
packets 
differently if they burst above this), as this is general
and not protocol 
specific. It could of course also differentiate on packet
sizes and a lot 
of other factors. Bad part is that it gives the user an
incentive to 
"hack" their CPE to allow them to send higher
speed with high priority 
traffic, thus hurting their neighbors.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmikeswm.pp.se