[AusNOG] News: Telstra to clamp down on peer-to-peer

Thu Feb 7 08:10:05 EST 2013

If bufferbloat gets resolved it will render QoS utterly redundant.
On 07/02/2013 6:38 AM, "Mark Smith" <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >________________________________
> > From: Phillip Grasso <phillip.grasso at gmail.com>
> >To: Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au>
> >Cc: "AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013 11:15 PM
> >Subject: Re: [AusNOG] News: Telstra to clamp down on peer-to-peer
> >
> >
> >Its their network and cost dynamic they should manage how they see fit;
> so long as they aren't blocking or going against net neutrality.
> >
>
> I think one of the problems with the terms "net neutrality" is that it is
> a single term which can mean two things, and when it is used it sometimes
> isn't that clear what people are referring to. Is it :
>
> - not touching the traffic at all, meaning not implementing QoS measures
> so that latency sensitive traffic isn't impacted by bulk throughput traffic
> (of which "P2P" is an example)
>
> - blocking access to certain websites, and making them "pay to access",
> which is what you're describing below
>
>
> I think "violating network neutrality" to prioritise latency sensitive
> traffic over bulk throughput traffic can be a reasonable thing to do if
> necessary, and this is what Telstra seem to be announcing they're going to
> be doing. The only other alternative is to buy enough bandwidth until the
> congestion disappears, or rather, is shifted to where it only impacts the
> person who is causing the congestion (i.e. putting the problem where it is
> caused) (I'm ignoring the options of making those customers go away, or not
> soliciting them in the first place). In a residential broadband network,
> that means buying so much bandwidth in the core of your network that the
> traffic bottle neck link is always the individual customers' access
> circuits.  Customers are probably not paying enough to be able to do that,
> and if they expect it, that's like saying that all our roads should be
> congestion free, and the only congestion that should ever occur is on our
> single driveway
>  when we have two cars - ideal, but impractical. I think it is an
> unrealistic expectation, and if people think they access circuit speed is a
> guarantee of their Internet service speed they don't understand how the
> Internet works and haven't read their T&Cs.
>
> Given the dramatic increases in access circuit speed that the NBN is going
> to provide, I think these protocol aware traffic throttling devices are
> only going to become more common.
>
> Perhaps one way to make the "P2P'ers" happy would be to use these DPI
> devices to mark this traffic as scavenger class, and then give it to them
> for free, or some how making it much much cheaper e.g. 1/10th of the price
> of non-scavenger class traffic, filling up the "white space" in the network
> when capacity is unused. ISPs would then be getting some form of value
> return on their normally unutilised link capacity.
>
> The second form of "network neutrality" is, of course, abhorrent.
>
> >
> >The wider concern is how does this impact the rest of the industry; are
> they Cough 'signalling' cough..... (hmm e.g. one bank announces their
> interest rates increase; surprise  the others do exactly the same [ well
> not any more] ).  The concern is that we go back to dark ages of blocking
> potential innovations / opportunities for our local industry. Limiting its
> ability to flourish by creating possible large 'constraints' on the next
> generation products / services. NBN coming down the line, I'd hope that
> 'could' pave the way for 'lan' style speeds to homes and allowing the
> Australian industry to be incubators of the next Google's/Facebooks of the
> world.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >Yes you can be skypes ports won't be blocked, it will be the standard P2P
> ports like 6969 and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >>On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Scott Howard <scott at doc.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Julian DeMarchi <
> julian at jdcomputers.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On 02/05/2013 09:02 PM, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
> >>>>> And not to mention P2P torrent traffic is only about 10% of illegal
> >>>>> traffic, compared to the 30%+ of file locker and 60%+ of usenet.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype
> >>>>
> >>>>runs over p2p...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Parts of that page are very much out of date.  Although Skype is still
> technically peer-to-peer based, the "peers" (supernodes) that previously
> could be any other Skype users system, are now only Microsoft systems in
> Microsoft datacenters. So in essence, it's more of a client-server
> architecture than P2P (even though it still does use P2P-style concepts to
> find those servers)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Even so, it's a moot point - Telstra aren't talking about throttling
> "P2P", they are talking about throttling specific P2P protocols - and
> dollars-to-donuts says Skype would not be one of those they are considering.
> >>>
> >>>  Scott
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>AusNOG mailing list
> >>>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >>>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>AusNOG mailing list
> >>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >AusNOG mailing list
> >AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130207/ce4abc5f/attachment.html>