Instead of a scavenger class, why couldn't "best-effort" or undesignated
traffic be the scavenger class traffic, and allow consumers to
designate some relatively tiny amount (either by monthly allocation or daily
percentage or whatever) for Expedited Forwarding. (The EF quota would be
an amount definitely enough to make VOIP and head-to-head games work -- since
that's the practical example that we have today -- but the choice of what to
prioritize is the users' and not the ISP's purview.)
Users (through their applications) could identify which packets are
which. To prevent abuse, the network should ignore the markings if the
user is above their quota for that DSCP.
So, best effort is best effort today, and
you have a priority class (that you call EF). In this imagined
priority class, what quota would you attach to it? 64Kbps,
96Kbps, etc.? I am guessing in this case that you would need user
devices and/or software to designate the use of such a class, therefore
delegating priority selection to these users and/or their
software/devices.
An opt-in DPI device
at the carrier could help consumers get on board without further
configuration. It would feature a one-size-fits-most preset that applies
for most users. Otherwise, consumers could enable or upgrade their
applications and equipment to enable packet marking to fit their own
desires.
So
you are suggesting the ISP deploys DPI, so I have marked this day in
history. ;-) In all seriousness, though, can you explain what you
mean by 'help consumers get on board without further configuration?' I
am not sure I understand how the DPI function would work in your
suggestion. Are you saying that it be used in some kind of
policy enforcement function, or to ensure that what is marked as say
priority really 'should' be or 'should not' be priority? Appreciate any
thoughts you have to expand on what you mean to
suggest. --
Robb Topolski (
robb at funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
http://www.funchords.com/
