From: "Henry Sinnreich" <hsinnrei at adobe.com>
... After all QoS is an evil tool ...
IMHO, QoS is a much more complex area than it first seems. As the
IAB's I-D points out, QoS can be used to reduce Internet transparency
for undesirable means. But on the other hand, the proper use of QoS
is very useful in situations where the demand for bandwidth exceeds
the supply, and if skillfully applied, can be used to place the costs
of infrastructure deployment on the users that require the additional
infrastructure.
Consider the case of someone who set up an open Wi-Fi network and
within a few days discovered that someone had attached a Bit Torrent
server to it. As Internet applications become more sophisticated,
it's always possible to build applications that can consume more
bandwidth than is available.
If QoS is properly applied and priced, it becomes like
congestion-pricing of roads -- most of the costs are borne by the
users whose demands require adding infrastructure, while users willing
to avoid making those demands use the service for much, much lower
prices. (Which will reduce the need for explicit subsidies for
poverty-stricken users.)
How do you get the good and avoid the bad? As far as I can see, if a
service provider has a free hand and a monopoly, they can impose all
of the evils of QoS, even if there is no QoS architecture in the
protocols. But if there is adequate competition, or regulation that
produces the results that adequate competition would provide, QoS
limitations and pricing would be driven by the impact of usage on
infrastructure costs.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip at ietf.org for new developments of core SIP