v6 like v4 has the ability to mark traffic as priority. The question is
if the infrastructure "trusts" the markings.
I can run a simple policy that will tag all traffic out of my network as
priority, but my ISP will just have a policy that will remove that tag.
The only way to ensure true prioritization is to inspect the packet.
Though, once you've chosen to move the packet that far up the stack, you
have just introduced so much latency that it is worthless. There-in
lies the problem. How does an ISP mark the traffic?
It used to be that they could look at destination ports, and that can be
done with a quick "Oh, this is headed for 80, it's HTTP!" This can no
longer be trusted. Apps like P2P and IM software are, in an effort to
bypass restrictions, using port 80 to register themselves with their
respective services.
Current best practices seems to be to inspect the first packet to
validate it and then mark the stream appropriately. As long as the
stream is alive, priority is given to the packets and all is good. Now,
what happens with UDP.... worse yet, multicast?
These are the issues that we are going to see over the next 3-5 years.
One thing I know for certain, legislation is not the answer.
Mike K.
Now I'm not all that up on IPv6, but doesn't it have the ability to prioritize data? Though for highly synchronous data the underlying physical network has to be up to the task...
Chuck
M. Knisely wrote:
Gigibit to the home is NOT the solution. The issue is not bandwidth to the home, but the queuing/prioritization of data in the backbone of the Internet.
My opinion is, if some home machine has a 1000Mb/s connection to the Internet then they'll be sending 1000Mb/s of SPAM since they downloaded the newest Russian Mafia Trojan while surfing for free porn.
The issues is the backbone. How do we handle the traffic? It's not that we can't get all the data through? No, we can do that without issue. The issue is how quickly can we move the data, and should any of that data get preferential treatment. To those downloading free .mp3 files, the thought is that all the data should be treated the same. To those on Skype, they want VoIP traffic to move quickly to take away the latency in the conversation.
To those that run the backbone, they want two classes: 1: Time sensitive data 2: Everything else
It's when the ISPs contract with their "partners" to deliver services where we will run into issues. Now, what's to stop this? They way I see it, competition. Does this mean all of us running fiber to our own houses? I don't think so. I think that with the advent and extension of MPLS technologies, we'll see the rebirth of the local ISP... Ritchnet returns? The competition of the local ISP will keep the big ISPs from becoming too unfair with their service preferences.
Remember though, we are only concerned about the local loops and large ISPs. The backbone providers don't want to concern themselves with different classes of services for different providers. All the backbone cares about is the two classes listed above.
Mike K.
Henry Keultjes wrote:
I, CRINGELY - June 29, 2006 Column
***********************************
Robert X. Cringely's latest column is now available online:
"If We Build It They Will Come"
Regular folk can solve the Net Neutrality debate by investing in
gigabit-capacity fiber to the home.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
