On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 23-okt-2007, at 14:52, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> I also would like to see a UDP scavenger service,
for those
>> applications that generate lots of bits but
>> can tolerate fairly high packet losses without
replacement. (VLBI,
>> for example, can in principle live with 10% packet
loss without
>> much pain.)
>
> Note that this is slightly different from what I've
been talking
> about: if a user trips the traffic volume limit and is
put in the
> lower-than-normal traffic class, that user would still
be using TCP
> apps so very high packet loss rates would be
problematic here.
>
> So I guess this makes three traffic classes.
>
>> In this case, I suspect that a "worst
effort" TOS class would be
>> honored across domains.
>
> If not always by choice. 
Comcast has come out with a little more detail on what they
were doing :
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/comc
ast-were-delaying-not-
blocking-bittorrent-traffic/
Speaking on background in a phone interview earlier today, a
Comcast
Internet executive admitted that reality was a little more
complex.
The company uses data management technologies to conserve
bandwidth
and allow customers to experience the Internet without
delays. As
part of that management process, he said, the company
occasionally –
but not always – delays some peer-to-peer file transfers
that eat
into Internet speeds for other users on the network.
-----
(My understanding is that this traffic shaping is only
applied to P2P
traffic transiting the Comcast network, not to
connections within that network.)
Regards
Marshall
|
