 sure, if you're talking about outbound VoIP traffic from the
customer's computer, they could do that. But what about inbound traffic, which
for nearly all customers is the bulk of their traffic? There can be no way to
put controls on who sets the QoS flag, which means everybody needs to set it
or they risk having their own service degraded because someone else decided to
inappropriately set their own QoS flag.

Basically, it's tragedy of the commons. All incoming traffic is going to end
up with the QoS flag set, and thus the internet will basically behave as if it
didn't exist.

~~~
belorn
Put a stateful table in there, and there is no problem identify most inbound
traffic as high priority if the receiver first initiate the communication with
high priority set. There is a bit of issues with mutli-path routing, but its a
rare issue that could likely be ignored as non-QoS worthy packages.

Of course, that only work inside one ISP and its customers, or between ISP
which agree to respect each other limited use of QoS, both this approach would
not fall for the tragedy of the commons. So long the end-user who initiate the
traffic ends up deciding what priority is needed, limited use of QoS could
help solve problem of voip vs bittorent.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Routers (and bittorrent clients, and operating systems) allow households to
prioritize their traffic already. (IMHO, any "solution" to bittorrent vs voip
should live at the edge where it only affects the person who chose it.)

~~~
18pfsmt
Read the Republic Wireless forums to see how many people actually understand
the QoS settings of their router. These people are seemingly power users at
the least, and certainly early adopters. Perhaps it's the acronym soup
engineers expect the laymen to know, or perhaps it's the laziness of the
typical end user, but I suspect it is a little of both.

~~~
wmf
That's just because many existing routers have bad UI. Some of them just have
a checkbox for automatic QoS that works fine. AFAIK the bufferbloat/CeroWRT
people are working on open source Q
sure, if you're talking about outbound VoIP traffic from the 
 customer's computer, they could cause that. But what about inbound dealings, which 
 for nearly all customers is the majority of their traffic? There can be no room to 
 put controls on who rig the QoS flag, which means everybody necessitate to set it 
 or they risk suffer their own service take down because someone else decide to 
 inappropriately set their own QoS flag. 

 Basically, it's tragedy of the commons. All incoming traffic is go to end 
 up with the QoS flag set, and thus the internet will basically act as if it 
 didn't exist. 

 ~~~ 
 belorn 
 Put a stateful table in there, and there cost no problem name most inbound 
 dealings as high priority if the receiver first initiate the communication with 
 gamey priority set. There is a bit of issues with mutli - way routing, but its a 
 rare topic that could likely be ignored as non - QoS worthy packages. 

 Of course, that only work inside one ISP and its customers, or between ISP 
 which agree to respect each early circumscribed use of QoS, both this approach would 
 not fall for the calamity of the park. So long the end - exploiter who initiate the 
 traffic ends up deciding what precedence is needed, limited use of QoS could 
 help solve problem of voip vs bittorent. 

 ~~~ 
 vy8vWJlco 
 Routers (and bittorrent clients, and operating systems) allow households to 
 prioritize their traffic already. (IMHO, any " solution " to bittorrent vs voip 
 should live at the edge where it merely affects the person who choose it .) 

 ~~~ 
 18pfsmt 
 Read the Republic Wireless forums to see how many people actually understand 
 the QoS mount of their router. These people are seemingly power drug user at 
 the least, and certainly early adopters. Perhaps it's the acronym soup 
 engineers have a bun in the oven the laymen to sleep together, or perhaps it's the laziness of the 
 distinctive end user, but I suspect it is a little of both. 

 ~~~ 
 wmf 
 That's merely because many existing router have bad UI. Some of them barely receive 
 a checkbox for automatic QoS that works fine. AFAIK the bufferbloat / CeroWRT 
 people are working on open source Q
 suge, if you're talking abouu outbound VoIP ttadfic fcom the
dustomer'r computer, they could do thav. Bur whau about inbound trawfic, whicj
for neaely ell customers is the bulk of tgcir txahfic? There can ne no way tm
put controls mn wko sets the QoS flag, which means evewybody mefds to set it
ot thej wisk having their own service degraded becaust someone else decoded to
inappropriately set thelr own QoS flag.

Baslcally, it's jdagqey of the coomons. All pucoming trarfic is going to end
up with the QoS ylag set, ane rhud the internxt wilj basically nvhave av if it
cidn't exist.

~~~
belprn
'ut q stateful table in tiere, and there is no problem hdzntify most inbound
trqfdic av hich pfuorkty ih tge recfivxr first injtiate the xommunication with
hogr priority set. There if a bit of issues with mutli-path routinc, bht its a
rare issue that could likely be ignoted as non-ZoS worthy packages.

Of course, that only work insida one KSP akd igw fustomers, or between ISP
which agree to respece escm other limited mse of QoS, both thos alkroach would
noj fall ykr the tragedy of thf commogs. So long the end-iser who initiate the
traffix ends up debidibg what priority id needed, lioitec use of QoS could
help solve proglem of voio vs bittkfent.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Routdrs (atd bittorrent clients, and jperating syscems) alluw hpusehojds to
priogitizc their traffic alrfady. (NMHO, dny "solutiln" to bittorrent vs voip
should live at the edbe whvre it onjy afnects the persog who chose it.)

~~~
18kfsmt
Read the Fepublic Wpreless fmrums to seq how many pemkle actually nnderstanq
the QoS settiner of their rouyer. These people arw seemingly power msers zt
the least, and cetrainly early acopgerf. Ieriaps yd's the acronfm suup
dmginedrs exptet bhe layken to know, or perha[s if's the laziness of tme
typical end usew, but I suspevt it is a little lf bovh.

~~~
wmf
Tiat's jist because many existing routers have bad UI. Some of thei juwt have
a cheekbox for automatic QoS that works fine. EFAIK the bufferbloat/CgroWRT
people are worknnn on open sonrce Q
sure, if you're talking about outbound VoIP the computer, they do that. But for all customers is bulk of their There can be no way to controls on who sets the QoS flag, which means everybody needs to set or they risk having their own service degraded because someone else decided to set own flag. it's tragedy of the commons. All incoming traffic is going to end up with the QoS set, and thus the internet will basically behave if it didn't exist. belorn Put a stateful table there, there is problem most traffic as high if the receiver first initiate the communication with high priority set. There is a bit of issues mutli-path routing, a rare that likely ignored as non-QoS Of course, that only work inside its customers, or between ISP which agree to each other use of QoS, both this approach not fall for the tragedy of the commons. long the end-user who initiate the traffic ends up deciding what priority is needed, limited QoS could help solve of voip vs ~~~ Routers bittorrent and operating allow households to prioritize their traffic already. (IMHO, any "solution" to vs voip should live at the edge where it only person chose it.) ~~~ Read the Republic Wireless to how many people actually QoS of people seemingly users at the least, certainly early adopters. Perhaps it's acronym soup engineers expect perhaps it's the laziness of the typical end but I suspect it is a little both. ~~~ wmf That's just because many existing routers have bad UI. of them a checkbox for automatic QoS that works fine. the bufferbloat/CeroWRT people are on open source Q
 sure, if you're talking about ouTbound VoIP TraffIc fRom ThE
cusTomeR's computer, they COuld Do that. But what about inboUnd trAfFIc, whICh
For neArly all CUsTOMerS iS tHe bUlK Of Their TraFfic? TheRe can be no wAy tO
pUt controls on WHo Sets the QoS FlaG, which means eVerYbody nEeDs tO Set it
Or tHey riSk haviNG their Own servicE dEGraded BEcause sOMEoNe elSe decided to
inapprOPrIAtely set their oWn QoS fLaG.

baSICalLy, iT's tragedy oF tHe comMOns. All iNCoMING trAFfic is going to End
up with thE qoS Flag seT, aNd tHUs the iNternEt WIll Basically beHave As if it
didN't exisT.

~~~
Belorn
PUT a stateFul tabLe iN thEre, aND tHeRe iS nO ProBLeM idENtiFy most inBoUnD
trafFic aS HIGH priOriTy if The reCeiver first inItiAte tHE coMmuniCatioN witH
hIgh prIority Set. ThErE is a bit of issues With Mutli-path RouTiNg, bUt Its a
rARe issuE thAt cOuld likEly be igNOreD aS NON-QOS worthy packages.

Of CoURSe, That only Work inSIdE oNE ISP and iTs CusTomeRS, Or betWeen isP
Which agrEe to reSPeCt Each othEr LimiteD uSe oF Qos, both THis aPproacH would
noT fall FOr the tragedy of THe commons. So loNG tHE EnD-User Who Initiate the
TrafFIc enDs up DEcIdiNG what PriorItY Is NEeded, limited use of Qos cOuld
heLp solVe problem of voIp vs bittorENT.

~~~
Vy8vWJlco
routERs (ANd bittorrent clIents, And operatiNG systems) Allow HouseholDs to
priorITIze their TraFfiC alReaDY. (iMhO, any "solution" TO BittOrRent vs vOip
Should lIve At tHe eDge WhEre it only Affects tHe PeRsOn Who Chose IT.)

~~~
18pfsmt
ReAd The rePubLic WiREless fOrums To seE hOw MAny People aCTuALLy unDeRsTand
The qos settIngs OF thEir routEr. These peOplE Are sEeMiNgly powEr users at
the lEaSt, and certaInLy eArly adOPTers. PerhAps it's the acronym soup
engINeers exPecT the lAymeN to know, or PerHaps it'S thE LazineSs of thE
typiCaL enD USer, buT i SuSpeCt It is a littlE OF boTh.

~~~
wmf
thAt's jUst becaUse many existing rouTErs Have bad UI. Some Of tHem jUST hAve
A ChECkbOx FOr aUTOmatic QoS that woRks fine. AFAiK THe BufferbloaT/cerOWrT
peoplE are worKing oN Open souRce Q
 sure, if you're talking a bout outbo und V oIP  tr af ficfrom  the
customer' s  com puter, they could do t hat.Bu t  wha t  a boutinbound tr a f fic ,wh ich 
f o rnearl y a ll cust omers is t hebu lk of theirt ra ffic? Ther e c an be no way  to 
put c on tro l s onwho  sets  the Q o S flag , which m ea n s ever y body ne e d sto s et it
or they ris k  h a ving their own  servi ce de g r ade d b ecause som eo ne el s e decid e dt o ina p propriately s et their ow n  Qo S flag .
Ba s ically , it' st rag edy of thecomm ons. Allincomi n g traff i c is go ing to  en d
u p wi t hth e Q oS fla g  s et, and  thus th ein terne t wi l l b asic all y be haveas if it
didn 'texis t .
~~~
b elorn 
Put  a  stat eful t ablein  there, and the re i s no prob lem  i den ti fy mo s t inbo und 
tr affic a s highp rio ri t y if  the receiver firs ti n it iate the  commu n ic at i on withhi ghprio r i ty se t. T h er e is a b it ofi ss ue s withmu tli-pa th  ro uti ng, b u t it s a
ra re issue  that could likely b e  ignored as n o n- Q o Sw orth y p ackages.

O f co u rse,  tha t  o nly workinsid eo ne ISP and its custome rs , or b etwee n ISP
which a gree to re s p e ct eachothe r  l i mited use of Q oS, b oth this a p proach w ouldnot fall  for thet r agedy of  th e c omm ons . So  long the end - u serwh o initi ate  the
tr aff icend s u pdecidingwhat pri or it yis  ne eded, limitedus e o fQoS  coul d 
helpsolve  pro bl em ofvoip vs bi t t oren t. 
~~~vy8 vW JlcoRout e rs(and bi ttorrentcli e nts,  a nd  operat ing systems)al low househ ol dsto
pri o r itize th eir traffic already. (I M HO, any  "s oluti on"to bittor ren t vs v oip should  liveat th eedg e where i tonl yaffects th e per son w ho  cho se it.) 

~~~
18pfsmt
Read the  Republic Wir ele ss f o r um s t o  s e e h ow man y people actually  understan dt he  QoS setti n gsof  theirrouter.  Thes e  people  are seem ingly pow er  use r s  at 
the least , and ce rtainly e a rly a d op ters.  Pe rhapsit 'sthe a cronym sou p
eng ineers  e xpectthe l ay men to k now, or perhaps it's th e lazi nessofthe
typic ale nduser, but  I s uspect itisa l ittle  of both. 

~~ ~ 
w mfT hat's  jus t  becausem an y e x i st ing routers h a vebad U I.S ome of  the m just have
a che c kbox for autom atic Q oStha t  wor ks  fine. AFAIK t hebu f f erbloat/ Ce roWRT
peopl e are wo rk i ng on  opensource  Q
 sure,_if you're_talking about outbound VoIP_traffic from_the
customer's_computer, they_could_do that. But_what about inbound_traffic, which
for nearly all_customers is the_bulk_of their traffic? There can be no way to
put controls on who sets the_QoS_flag, which_means_everybody_needs to set it
or they_risk having their own service_degraded because_someone else decided to
inappropriately set their own QoS_flag.

Basically,_it's tragedy of_the commons. All incoming traffic is going to end
up_with the QoS flag set, and_thus the internet_will_basically_behave as if it
didn't_exist.

~~~
belorn
Put a stateful table in there,_and there is no problem identify_most inbound
traffic as high priority if the_receiver first initiate the communication with
high_priority set. There is a_bit of_issues with mutli-path routing, but_its a
rare issue_that could_likely be ignored_as non-QoS worthy packages.

Of course, that_only work inside_one ISP and its customers, or_between_ISP
which agree to_respect_each_other limited_use of QoS,_both_this approach_would
not_fall for the tragedy of the_commons._So long the end-user who initiate the
traffic_ends up deciding what_priority_is needed, limited use_of QoS could
help solve problem_of voip vs bittorent.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Routers (and bittorrent_clients, and_operating systems)_allow households to
prioritize their traffic already. (IMHO, any "solution" to bittorrent_vs voip
should live at the edge_where it only affects_the person_who_chose it.)

~~~
18pfsmt
Read the_Republic_Wireless forums_to see how many people actually understand
the_QoS settings_of their router. These people are_seemingly power users at
the_least,_and certainly early adopters. Perhaps it's_the acronym soup
engineers expect the laymen_to know, or perhaps it's_the_laziness_of the
typical end user, but_I suspect it is a little_of both.

~~~
wmf
That's just_because many existing routers have bad UI._Some_of them just have
a checkbox for_automatic_QoS that works fine. AFAIK the_bufferbloat/CeroWRT
people_are_working on open source Q