Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?

[Bora Akyol <bora.akyol () aprius com>]

I see your point. The main problem I see with the traffic shaping or worse
boxes is that comcast/ATT/... Sells a particular bandwidth to the customer.
Clearly, they don't provision their network as Number_Customers*Data_Rate,
they provision it to a data rate capability that is much less than the
maximum possible demand.

This is where the friction in traffic that you mention below happens.

I have to go check on my broadband service contract to see how they word the
bandwidth clause.

Bora



On 10/22/07 9:12 AM, "Sean Donelan" <sean () donelan com> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Bora Akyol wrote:
> > I think network operators that are using boxes like the Sandvine box are
> > doing this due to (2). This is because P2P traffic hits them where it hurts,
> > aka the pocketbook. I am sure there are some altruistic network operators
> > out there, but I would be sincerely surprised if anyone else was concerned
> > about "fairness"
>
> The problem with words is all the good ones are taken.  The word
> "Fairness" has some excess baggage, nevertheless it is the word used.
>
> Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic principles,
> but for most network operators when the pain isn't spread equally across
> the the customer base it represents a "fairness" issue.  If 490 customers
> are complaining about bad network performance and the cause is traced to
> what 10 customers are doing, the reaction is to hammer the nails sticking
> out.
>
> Whose traffic is more "important?" World of Warcraft lagged or P2P
> throttled?  The network operator makes P2P a little worse and makes WoW a
> little better, and in the end do they end up somewhat "fairly" using the
> same network resources. Or do we just put two extremely vocal groups, the
> gamers and the p2ps in a locked room and let the death match decide the
> winnner?