On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 10000s of > 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day > the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service > flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators > will sell more than a few (perhaps just one) top priority in a given a > category. >
yes, there will only ever be 5 computers. or you couldn't possibly need more than 640kb of ram..... or more than 4billion 'ip addresses'. I don't think you have to get to more than 10 or 20 of the stated examples before things get dicey ... Once a set of customers experience (and can measure) the effect, they'll back their complaints up to 'moviecompany' and some set of contract penalties will kick in, I suspect. Sure, if there is only one it's not a problem, but there are already not just one... > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Christopher Morrow > <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks <r...@hack.net> wrote: >> > On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >> >> >> >> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane" >> >> >> > >> > I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here. A lot of the dialog >> > has >> > included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no >> > 'fast >> > lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_ applied >> > to >> > existing traffic. >> > >> >> please correct me if I'm wrong, but 'fast lane' really is (in this >> example): >> 'cableco' port from 'moviecompany' has 'qos' marking configuration >> to set all 'moviecompany' traffic (from this port!) to some priority >> level. >> >> customer-port to 'cableco' has 'qos' handling/queuing that will >> ensure '5mbps' of 'moviecompany' is always going to get down the link >> to the customer, regardless of the other traffic the customer is >> requesting. >> >> right? (presume that in the rest of the 'cableco' network is >> protecting 'moviecompany' traffic as well, of course) >> >> So, when there are 1 'moviecompany' things to prioritize and deliver >> that's cool... but what about when there are 10? 100? 1000? doesn't >> the queuing get complicated? what if the 'cableco' customer with >> 10mbps link has 3 people in the location all streaming from 3 >> different 'moviecompany' organizations which have paid for 'fastlane' >> services? >> >> 3 x 5 == 15 ... not 10. How will 'cableco' manage this when their >> 100gbps inter-metro links are seeing +100gbps if 'fastlane' traffic >> and 'fastlane' traffic can't make it to the local metro from the >> remote one? >> >> This all seems much, much more complicated and expensive than just >> building out networking, which they will have to do in the end anyway, >> right? Only with 'fastlanes' there's extra capacity management and >> configuration and testing and ... all on top of: "Gosh, does the new >> umnptyfart card from routerco actually work in old routerco routers?" >> >> This looks, to me, like nuttiness... like mutually assured destruction >> that the cableco folk are driving both parties into intentionally. >> >> -chris >> >> BTW: I didn't use a particular 'cable company' name for 'cableco', nor >> did I use a particular streaming media company for 'moviecompany'... >> Also, 'cableco' is short-hand for >> 'lastmile-consumer-provider-network'. Less typing was better, for me, >> I thought. > >
