cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Traffic Prioritisation

N/A

Traffic Prioritisation

The current banding system is very inflexible - it's possibly impractical, but as each user's internet priorities differ, perhaps a system could be devised to enable the user to choose where their priorities lie? Many people don't ever use pop3/smtp, and so having this in Gold band is absurd - it's important, but only to a selection of people - the same applies to games, and if a port system is used, only certain games will ever be given priority (there are 65536 ports - I wouldn't like the job is setting those rules!).

If some means could be devised to allow users to select priority "ports", through a web frontend for their connection, perhaps a lot of the peak time choke could be avoided and we'd all get a far better online experience?
3 REPLIES
N/A

Traffic Prioritisation

what you suggest would defeat the purpose of the system really.

when everyones billing resets now they move over to the new revised traffic management system. - See the Vision update topic

So we'll be seeing a lot of improvements.

Letting people choose is not something that could be developed in any reasonable time frame (years at best i would think due to the sheer complexity).

Also it would mean during peak time. everyone could max in what they wanted to do. causing a network slow down and not actually fix it.
N/A

Traffic Prioritisation

You are of course correct.

Part of my point was spawned from the recent announcement that "gaming" will be prioritised... and I'm pretty confused as to how such a broad field (i've never known any two game engines to use the same port ranges, for example) could possibily be prioritised. Web browsing, email, ftp: these are all relatively easy by comparison - and as with any shared system such as this, we must be looking out for the majority. Surely the best way to do this is to keep a log of users preferences to marry against their habits?

A system of choice such as this could, in the first instance, prove a highly valuable strategic tool for plusnet, even if it can't initally bring any rewards to the end user. Obviously whilst the user deals in micro, our ISP must deal in the macro - so this idea would at least initially provide load averaging based on user preference - it's not a solution to the problem, but I entirely disagree that it would undermine their 2006 vision - if anything, it would allow them to enhance it by banding according to customer request rather than purely from historical data.
N/A

Traffic Prioritisation

as far as i know the elloycas dont base the priortisation based on a port per port basis. Not at the moment atleast.

the reason being for example is u could potentionally use a gaming port for p2p for example. or do an ssh tunnel via 1 of the gamign ports.

I think its down to actually looking inside the packet and they'll be tell tale signs in the packet which allow the elloycas to tell what type of traffic it is.

My guess is also that there is a predefined set of signitures for known types of traffice built in so theres only a rare occasoin where some manual labour needs to be done to make sure the traffic is priortised correctly.