NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: [IP] BitTorrent uTorrent 2.0 uTP will self-throttle to protect networks
|
Dr. Cerf, I understand that Google and others like to tout “user preference
prioritization”, but you haven’t addressed some of the key
limitations to that system. I am fine with user-labeled priority so long
as it operates with reasonable priority quotas and budgets, but what do you do
about the vast majority of users and applications that fail to label accurately
or fail to label at all? So my question to you is this: ·
Do you have a problem with a default priority mechanism - one
that would cede control to user or application preference so long as it is
within quota – that is implemented by the ISP which always gives higher
priority to low bandwidth applications over high bandwidth applications, and
gives priority to low duration applications over high duration applications?
Do you have a problem with this type of good discrimination? ·
If you do have a problem with a default ISP priority, please
explain your reasoning. Is the objection based on a concern that a
default prioritization scheme would inaccurately classify information (even though
we can classify based on packet patterns rather than simple port
identification), or do you have a philosophical problem with it? And if
so, how would this be any different Comcast’s “Fair Share”
system which prioritizes low bandwidth users (average measured over 15 minutes)
over high bandwidth users which the FCC reviewed and considers fair? George Ou From: Vint Cerf
[mailto:vint@google.com] George, This discussion suggests that users should have something to
say about the priority of packet flows WITHIN the capacity they are paying for
(capital letters just in lieu of italics; I am not shouting). If the access ISP
can do traffic shaping to keep users within their pro-rata envelopes and also
respond to user-specified priority, I would think we would be moving toward a
balance that seems useful. vint On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:54 PM, George Ou wrote:
I’ve published my results
here. Dr. Reed. Your use of the
words “rhetoric” and “tricks” aren’t very useful
to this discussion, and I would take issue with your comments. 1. BitTorrent still hogs
over 90% of my broadband connection over HTTP. This has significant
ramifications beyond just real-time applications like VoIP and online gaming. 2. You shouldn’t be so
quick to discount VoIP and online gamers. A very large number of
BitTorrent (or any P2P app) users also do online gaming and VoIP, and
they’re forced to shut down their P2P application when the use VoIP or
game and that actually hurts the P2P upload and download throughput for the
entire P2P community since there are fewer seeders. 3. Don’t conflate wireless
with wired broadband. Just because 150 ms ping for wireless is best case
doesn’t make 70 ms additional on a wired network bearable for online
gaming. Maybe you’re different, but I don’t know any gamer
that will put up with an additional 70 ms if they can help it. I thought
it would be tolerable for VoIP, but my Lingo VoIP phone service drops a
significant amount of audio even when I merely upload with BitTorrent. George Ou From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf OfDavid P. Reed I find the word games/rhetorical
tricks that Ou and Bennett use fascinating. We'll see whether Farber
posts my response below. Subject:
RE: [ NNSquad ] BitTorrent uTorrent 2.0 uTP will self-throttle to
protect networks I will do some testing myself, because I am curious about the
mechanism in uTorrent 2.0. I do note that "unbearable levels
for online gaming and VoIP" is an interesting statement. |