h a l f b a k e r yVeni, vedi, fish velocipede
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I once called a police office which had a computer answer the phone. I could press 1 to immediately be connected or 2 to continue holding. This allowed higher-priority calls to go through more quickly. As it happened my call was rather low priority so I chose to hold.
I propose the same kind of idea
for network routing. When I'm listening to comedy via youtube at work, I think my company's routers are calling it real time priority and letting it stream as fast as possible, along with the conference call taking place next door. I'm not happy with that situation.
I propose a router option for User Selected Quality of Service which would take into account, to a degree set by the Network Admin, the QoS requested by the user. People who need that e-mail as soon as it arrives, or who need that report yesterday can get priority over Joe User's Doom III.
[link]
|
| |
Fine, if coupled to a payment system (so that the selfish don't simply label everything top priority). |
|
| |
Your payment system won't work, at least for companies. It would take way too much paperwork for teams in a company to financially justify every piece of high-priority traffic. |
|
| |
Baked on mainframes for the last 40-50 years, at least. |
|
| |
The thing is... your boss's Youtube is much more important than your conference call with major new clients. Because he is the boss. Perhaps it could then be simplified so that QoS comes with rank... office boy at 0 and CEO at 10. |
|
| |
Network admin priorities for network traffic already exist, both within company networks and, controversially, at large on the Internet. |
|
| |
We already pay for different bandwidth levels, why would paying for different access levels be any more complicated? |
|
| |
It used to be common sense "back in the day" - all users had a priority and users could set their separate tasks with priorities. This was for cost accounting and efficient machine-usage purposes. |
|
| |
<insert standard rant about current industry "priorites" having nothing to do with the customer> |
|
| |