I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran into a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus router I am using.
-eric from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting div. On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: > What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS is > an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light or > heavy as you want it to be. > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote: > I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it does > affect other users on my circuit. sure, it can be useful, but it's a sledge > hammer where a light touch is required. > > -eric > from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center > > On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote: > >> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to >> function”. >> >> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function. Its been working >> fine for years without that. Its just people trying to do things on the >> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the >> internet for THEIR use. >> >> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the >> end of the discussion. Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise >> the internet won’t work the way they think it should. Those who have not >> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate. But if >> you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then >> you must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it was >> designed. >> >> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is >> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember. But it is >> something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data >> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using >> realtime data. >> >> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon. >> >> Rusty >> >> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On >> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. >> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM >> To: Main PLUG discussion list >> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality >> debate >> >> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to >> provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the >> detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a >> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. >> <herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think >> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to >> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged >> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for >> this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com> >> wrote: >> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers. See below. >> >> >> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On >> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. >> >> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the >> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves >> >because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is >> >very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that >> >scenario. >> >> Which is pretty much to my point. TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data >> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire). >> >> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits >> better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet. When >> that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed. >> >> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to >> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business. >> >> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of >> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon >> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime >> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to >> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle. But I >> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle >> it. >> >> In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime >> data and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH >> more of a requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was >> originally designed. >> >> > You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind, but >> > that is where we are at and it is not changing. >> >> So then you should reject any attempt to cram a bad design onto something >> that wasn’t designed for it. Which those against any sort of net neutrality >> seem to be trying to do – force a bad design on the wrong medium (assuming I >> have half a clue as to what NN is SUPPOSED to be). >> >> Those who wish to transport realtime data over a network should design a >> network that can do that, not co-opt somebody else’s network. Again, IMHO. >> >> Rusty >> >> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com> >> > wrote: >> I still disagree. >> >> First, if they needed reliable delivery of packets, then they should use TCP. >> >> My understanding of the ‘theory’ of why streaming services use UDP is that >> it doesn’t hurt ‘much’ if you lose a ‘few’ packets – not as much as them >> showing up in the wrong order, or massively delayed, so using UDP is a >> workaround to try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry >> realtime data. >> >> So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’ >> for real-time data is to misuse the medium. And if a medium is misused, >> those so misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it >> wasn’t designed to do. >> >> Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data. >> >> Wasn’t intended to, IMHO. >> >> >> (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who >> claims to have invented it… And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp, >> gopher, and uucp used to mean ;-) (and who performed tests to prove that, >> between two Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than >> anything else. But I digress! ;-) >> >> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On >> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr. >> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM >> >> To: Main PLUG discussion list >> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality >> debate >> >> Rusty, >> >> I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic >> behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP >> and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like >> packet loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie >> most streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not then >> video will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The reason why >> there exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work with the >> transport medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you have all >> these different types of traffic contending for the same resource. If people >> expect web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run efficiently >> across the wire then prioritization is a reality that will not go away. This >> is nature of modern networks where data, voice and video are all converged >> on the same media. The reason I used the language I did was b/c an engineer >> who does not understands this and actually thinks that 'all traffic' can be >> treated the same will actually bring harm to the network. He will be doing a >> great disservice to users he supporting all under the false notion of >> 'equality'. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com> >> wrote: >> Yes, lets get back to the technical issues. >> >> First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain >> SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them. If that the case, then a discussion >> of the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain >> endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue. >> >> Anyway, that being said - >> >> I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that >> anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web >> pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot. >> >> On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES >> a different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic? If >> the entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements >> than the transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones. And >> have no right to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate >> their demands. >> >> Especially at everyone else's expense. >> >> Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment? I claim that either the >> systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within >> the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium. Don’t demand >> that the medium ADD special treatment for you. >> >> One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment >> would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this >> opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) monopoly >> position to materially affect the open market in ways which could easily >> damage the open market. >> >> >> (I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was >> just packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-) >> >> All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for, its >> IMHO. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On >> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez Jr. >> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM >> To: Main PLUG discussion list >> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality >> debate >> >> I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through >> the lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I am sure >> many would believe that government should a significant role is managing and >> others not. Most of this thread has focused on that. >> >> I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first >> part of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was >> bad policy. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700 >> > "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> First since I do not believe in >> > >> >> central planning >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > >> >> I do not know what >> >> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This >> >> what is awesome about the >> > >> > >> >> Free Market, >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > >> >> if there is market that was >> >> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide >> >> services. >> > >> > Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some >> > much more generic theories. >> > >> > SteveT >> > >> > Steve Litt >> > November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts >> > http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust >> > --------------------------------------------------- >> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
