nanog mailing list archives
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
From: Jack Bates <jbates () paradoxnetworks net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:27:50 -0600
On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Folks,Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start thinking more dynamic when they build their protocols where possible. Passive splitters obviously have the limitation of limiting frequencies, but our xDSL technologies and cable technologies do not have the restriction to my knowledge. Future protocols ideally would have a signaling band, recognition of frequency support bidirectionally and perhaps support dynamic allocation of those channels as-needed.
If an end node is saturating the upload but not using the download, why shouldn't the system shift the frequency usage? If only 10mb/s is being used out of a 50mb/s circuit for download, why not allow that extra capacity to be used for upload, temporarily shifting it's direction?
My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything?
For that matter, is there a reason we don't dynamically adjust frequencies on Ethernet? My servers would definitely love 1.8gb/s transmit since they receive very little.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Clayton Zekelman (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mike Hammett (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Clayton Zekelman (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Nick Hilliard (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John Levine (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Miles Fidelman (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Stephen Satchell (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Miles Fidelman (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Philip Dorr (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Mark Tinka (Feb 27)
- Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Mike Hammett (Feb 28)