Comments on: QoS: Quality of Suppression http://www.saunderslog.com/2006/05/17/qos-quality-of-suppression/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=qos-quality-of-suppression An outcome-driven leader, proven technology product developer, and marketer with over 20 years of hands-on experience including start-up, small and large business environments, and the board room. This is my blog. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:15:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alec http://www.saunderslog.com/2006/05/17/qos-quality-of-suppression/#comment-2203 Alec Wed, 17 May 2006 11:14:08 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/05/17/qos-quality-of-suppression/#comment-2203 It's funny Frank, but the QoS I've used really successfully at home has been pretty brute force. My Linksys WRT54GS router has the ability to prioritize traffic from individual MAC addresses high. I simply told it that the ATA devices got priority over everything else. Boom! Great quality... it's not courteous, but it works. I'm not sure whether painting packets, or whatever else, is the right way to do this. But I don't think it's hard if the parties with vested interests can get to the table. Or, as the article points out, maybe that isn't their intent. It's funny Frank, but the QoS I've used really successfully at home has been pretty brute force. My Linksys WRT54GS router has the ability to prioritize traffic from individual MAC addresses high. I simply told it that the ATA devices got priority over everything else. Boom! Great quality… it's not courteous, but it works.

I'm not sure whether painting packets, or whatever else, is the right way to do this. But I don't think it's hard if the parties with vested interests can get to the table. Or, as the article points out, maybe that isn't their intent.

]]> By: Frank Miller http://www.saunderslog.com/2006/05/17/qos-quality-of-suppression/#comment-2202 Frank Miller Wed, 17 May 2006 09:12:54 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/05/17/qos-quality-of-suppression/#comment-2202 Its been interesting to watch the progression of QoS implementations over the last 15 years. The bottom line is that you just need to identify the high priority traffic somehow and handle is more quickly than other traffic. Diffserv works for this but nobody does it and when they do, there's no agreement on the actual painting of packets. The only thing that has worked has been some kind of "segregation" of traffic in an arbitrary way. This means separate timeslots in a T-1 or PVC or SVC in an ATM network, essentially, reserved bandwidth. The real problem is, if we can't get devices (and their users) to be "curteous" about sharing their bandwidth, you're really left with traffic segregation as the only means to really make sure it works. As soon as you start talking about segregation, you've introduced overhead and overhead needs to be paid for. I guess my point is, I don't see this as some kind of conspiracy. The telcos may be capitalizing on the problem, but the underlying problem is real and the solution they're using is really the best way to solve the problem. Unfortunate, not a conspiracy. Its been interesting to watch the progression of QoS implementations over the last 15 years. The bottom line is that you just need to identify the high priority traffic somehow and handle is more quickly than other traffic. Diffserv works for this but nobody does it and when they do, there's no agreement on the actual painting of packets. The only thing that has worked has been some kind of "segregation" of traffic in an arbitrary way. This means separate timeslots in a T-1 or PVC or SVC in an ATM network, essentially, reserved bandwidth.

The real problem is, if we can't get devices (and their users) to be "curteous" about sharing their bandwidth, you're really left with traffic segregation as the only means to really make sure it works. As soon as you start talking about segregation, you've introduced overhead and overhead needs to be paid for. I guess my point is, I don't see this as some kind of conspiracy. The telcos may be capitalizing on the problem, but the underlying problem is real and the solution they're using is really the best way to solve the problem. Unfortunate, not a conspiracy.

]]>