[AusNOG] QoS on Internet traffic

[Mark Smith]

So I'm trying to parse that ...

On 20 August 2017 at 13:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's interesting that we're seeing around the globe a push to impose by
> legislation net neutrality, as a means to prevent market forces who want to
> do exactly that.

So market forces want to have net neutrality, yet legislation for net
neutrality is trying to prevent these market forces attaining net
neutrality?

>Rather puts them on the wrong side of history. While the
> differential exists between value as dictated by the market, and
> legislatively imposed externalities,
> we'll continue to see content
> industries subsidising the advertisers.
>

So content providers are paying advertisers to display advertising,
rather than being paid by advertisers?





> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 20 August 2017 at 11:49, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Geoff arrived early, tried out QoS, wrote a book on it, then gave up on
>> it.
>>
>> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-06/noqos.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Aug. 2017 11:07 am, "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For those who arrived late, this 2015 article goes to some length to
>> elaborate on the QoS ramifications of the FCC's Title II ruling for
>> broadband:
>>
>>
>> https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/L
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On 19 August 2017 at 15:49, Jamie Baddeley <jamie.baddeley at vpc.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 August 2017 at 16:57, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 01:00:39PM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>>>> > If your client sites have redundant links, you can get massive
>>>> > performance
>>>> > benefit by routing bulk transfer via the backup path.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for there is no QoS on the internet, that's mostly because US
>>>> > service
>>>> > providers are legislatively blocked from what would be a departure
>>>> > from net
>>>> > neutrality.
>>>>
>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>
>>>> It's got nothing to do with Net Neutrality.  If it was, (a) it would
>>>> have
>>>> happened long before any of that got started, and (b) the rest of the
>>>> world,
>>>> which is not similarly constrained, would be doing it, and everything
>>>> would
>>>> be just peachy.
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem with QoS on the Internet is the same as allowing senders
>>>> to
>>>> mark e-mails with priorities: everyone thinks *their* traffic is
>>>> important,
>>>> so everyone marks their packets / e-mails as "TOP PRIORITY", and you're
>>>> back
>>>> to exactly the same situation you're in now, where everything's
>>>> best-effort
>>>> and nobody is particularly happy.
>>>>
>>>> - Matt
>>>>
>>> Indeed. There is no QoS on the Internet because Best Effort is the only
>>> standard everyone can agree on. Of course some 'Best Efforts' are better
>>> than others, but that's life.
>>>
>>> Now, you can use some of the various techniques described in this thread.
>>> But that's not QoS. It's just making a better effort. Which is good.
>>>
>>> jamie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>