Go for it! I have turned an RPI3 into a router firewall before. Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote: > > well, I am giving serious thought to flashing that unit with DD-WRT. It's > that or get a raspberry pie and set that up as the firewall and network > manager. > > -eric > from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Gatekeeper's Dept > >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: >> >> I am not sure how well commercial devices implement QoS. As you saw it is >> very powerful. >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote: >>> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> 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
