[100367] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Mon Oct 22 12:32:39 2007
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <C34215BC.37D3%bora.akyol@aprius.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Bora Akyol wrote:
> I think network operators that are using boxes like the Sandvine box are
> doing this due to (2). This is because P2P traffic hits them where it hurts,
> aka the pocketbook. I am sure there are some altruistic network operators
> out there, but I would be sincerely surprised if anyone else was concerned
> about "fairness"
The problem with words is all the good ones are taken. The word
"Fairness" has some excess baggage, nevertheless it is the word used.
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic principles,
but for most network operators when the pain isn't spread equally across
the the customer base it represents a "fairness" issue. If 490 customers
are complaining about bad network performance and the cause is traced to
what 10 customers are doing, the reaction is to hammer the nails sticking
out.
Whose traffic is more "important?" World of Warcraft lagged or P2P
throttled? The network operator makes P2P a little worse and makes WoW a
little better, and in the end do they end up somewhat "fairly" using the
same network resources. Or do we just put two extremely vocal groups, the
gamers and the p2ps in a locked room and let the death match decide the
winnner?
