[100437] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Stickland)
Tue Oct 23 11:34:56 2007
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:12:35 +0100
From: Sam Stickland <sam_mailinglists@spacething.org>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
CC: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <5CB5BF98-CFCF-41C8-961C-B8A1574F0B2B@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 23-okt-2007, at 15:43, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>>> What I would like is a system where there are two diffserv traffic
>>> classes: normal and scavenger-like. When a user trips some
>>> predefined traffic limit within a certain period, all their traffic
>>> is put in the scavenger bucket which takes a back seat to normal
>>> traffic. P2P users can then voluntarily choose to classify their
>>> traffic in the lower service class where it doesn't get in the way
>>> of interactive applications (both theirs and their neighbor's).
>
>> Surely you would only want to set traffic that falls outside the
>> limit as scavenger, rather than all of it?
>
> If the ISP gives you (say) 1 GB a month upload capacity and on the 3rd
> you've used that up, then you'd be in the "worse effort" traffic class
> for ALL your traffic the rest of the month. But if you voluntarily
> give your P2P stuff the worse effort traffic class, this means you get
> to upload all the time (although probably not as fast) without having
> to worry about hurting your other traffic. This is both good in the
> short term, because your VoIP stuff still works when an upload is
> happening, and in the long term, because you get to do video
> conferencing throughout the month, which didn't work before after you
> went over 1 GB.
Oh, you mean to do this based on traffic volume, and not current traffic
rate? I suspose an external monitoring/billing tool would need track
this and reprogram the neccessary router/switch, but it's the sort of
infrastructure most ISPs would need to have anyway.
I was thinking more along the lines of: everything above 512 kbps (that
isn't already marked worse-effort) gets marked worse effort, all of the
time.
Sam
