Talk:Quality of service/Archive 1

To do

I'm adding a to do template to correspond to a "to do" HTML comment. My only involvement in this article is through Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation, but I figured I'd use the "offical" to do template in case it might be helpful. -- PhilipR 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Overprovisioning not enough, says who?

As the Internet now services close to a billion users, there is little possibility that over-provisioning can eliminate the need for QoS when VoIP becomes more commonplace.

This reads like network provider (e.g. Verizon, Comcast) propaganda justifying Tiered Internet. As both popular sides of the Net Neutrality debate take differing QoS positions (whether the corporations or the government should implement the QoS), few voices are being heard that network providers merely need to increase network provisions. A classic argument of whether to "grow the pie" or "redistribute the wealth". 71.162.255.58 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet2 researchers found that for large networks, QoS cannot work.[1][2] After exhaustive examination, the conclusion by these researchers was to "throw bandwidth at the problem" -- i.e. overprovision the network -- instead. 71.162.255.58 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No. They simply concluded that QoS is probably impractical. That's not the same thing as saying "it can't work".

Economic calculation problem

A parallel exists between QoS implementation and socialism vis-a-vis the Economic calculation problem. The namesake problem being, that both socialism (i.e. economic resource planning) and QoS (i.e. network resource planning) require knowledge in advance of what users will use the network for (whether dollars or packets), rather than this information only becoming known at the point (moment) of transaction between individuals. Because network operators implementing QoS do not have this beforehand knowledge, changes in use of the network could be counter-productive -- or otherwise masked/misdirected by pre-existing QoS. 71.162.255.58 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Senator Stevens is Not As Dumb as He Sounds by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. 71.162.255.58 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"ignored by the naive"

One compelling example of the need for QoS on the Internet that is often ignored by the naive relates to this issue of congestion collapse. Either by error or by intention, the Internet relies on TCP to reduce traffic load under conditions that would otherwise lead to Internet Meltdown. QoS applications such as VoIP and IPTV do not use TCP, hence they can't help prevent meltdown. QoS contracts limit traffic that can be offered to the Internet and thereby prevent it from becoming overloaded, hence they're an indispensable part of the Internet's ability to handle a mix of real-time and non-real-time traffic without meltdown.

This is, at best, worded in a too absolute way, since, again at best, the information contained is disputable. I for once would call this bullshit, since the problems that caused the described bahaviour have mostly been solved (amongst other things by RED/WRED). It seems to me as propaganda toward the tiered-internet model, and if someone else agrees with me, then by all means delete it, or better yet, alter it. --nunocordeiro 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Asynchronous Transfer Mode deserves a mention

ATM has elaborate treatment for QoS. It deserves detailed mention here as an example. I have added brief mention; need to detail further. --Raanoo 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was ITU definition "A set of quality requirements on the collective behavior of one or more objects" deleted?

WHy was the following introduction deleted?

"Quality of service, or QoS, in the field of telephony, was defined in the ITU standard X.902 as "A set of quality requirements on the collective behavior of one or more objects."

It is interesting, because it shows that the telephony definition resembles the computer networks definition, and that telecom people not always confuse QoS with the more subjective QoE measure. Mange01 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I got no answer, I put it back. Feel free to discuss it here, or add further references. Mange01 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Downstream QoS

Suggest that this short article Downstream QoS be merged into Quality of Service (or expand it to indicate how it relates to QoS in general and why it is distinct). Zodon (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

QoS table

I have added QoS Priority table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spc01 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Great. Please add an introduction to the table, stating the context or a reference. What protocol uses this table?

I suggest a comparison table, where the service classes/type of service of different protocols are mapped to each other. Mange01 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The table is interesting, it's a start for a complex discussion with the QoS standards. How can one manage these priority levels. Do you trust the sender when he tells "this is a high prio packet"? Then someone will defenitively release a Kazzaa QoS master ed. that labels it's entire traffic top prio. Thus one wan't to know whether the sender can be trusted. Systems using certificates with ssl encryption much like https uses are proposed. The party that issues the certificates would ask more money for a high prio cert, putting comerical applications at advantage. These issues make the QoS implementation even more complex, thus hampering its chance of succes even further. Frodo Muijzer (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Telephony quality of service

It seems to me that Telephony quality of service should be merged in here. ENeville 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree! Mange01 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The merge is complete but I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this was a bad idea. Read the lead all the way through and let me know. I personally think we should have an article with scope largely limited to IP networks. --Kvng (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mobile QoS merge

A merge from Mobile QoS has been proposed.

• I oppose the merge. There is little overlap in content between network, telephony and mobile QoS topics. --Kvng (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Overprovisioning

Is this overprovisioning, over provisioning, or over-provisioning? --Kvng (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why the capital letters --- Quality of Service, rather than quality of service? Michael Hardy 20:19 27 May 2003 (UTC)

In my experience it's generally capitalised to indicate that it's a technical term - IE, QoS is subtly different from what a layperson might describe as the quality of a service. For example, a connection with a very low bandwidth can have a high QoS if it is utterly reliable, yet clearly it is of lower quality than, say, ADSL. But I'm don't care overmuch. Martin

English has taught me that we don't capitalise the O in of, because it doesn't have enough letters to be a significant word. Otherwise, it might just as well be another TLA. Catch my drift?

In fact the article title should be Quality of Service rather than as present, because of the technical nature of the term (and I would have changed it but it wasn't immediately obvious how to do so). Also, given the focus of this article on IP network QoS, should the article also delve into non-technical QoS topics such as the Paris Metro example requested above? My sense is that should be a separate article (and perhaps quality of service in lower case). --Itsgeneb 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a technical editor and I would strongly suggest that the phrase not be capitalized. Random capitalization of things deemed to be "technical terms" are one of the things that drives most people (myself included) up a wall about jargon-filled technical content. The fact that the phrase is being used in a narrow, technical sense is clear from context. --Jfruh (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_of_service&oldid=198374686 this has been changed, and subsequently even the term's initial use un-bolded. It might not have been liked that this phrase is always used capitalised, but changing here it without further discussion was a bit on the nose. No I'm not going to edit-war it, but it isn't even consistent or clear anymore. Does wikip have a policy on this? Bwooce (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS is probably what you're asking about. Dancter (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Quality of Service" is a name, not a description. It's not "the quality of the service" it's "Quality of Service" as a thing, so it should be capitalized. Think of it as "Star Trek". Yes, a star can trek across the universe, but "Star Trek" is capitalized. Simularly, the quality of your network's voice service is dependant upon whether or not you've implemented "Quality of Service" features. Google; "Cisco ios qos" and you'll find it's always capitalized. Unsigned by October 13, 2011‎ 155.104.37.18

Huh? In normal English only proper nouns are capitalized. This is clearly not, since it is about a general concept (or actually several slightly different concepts in related fields more precisely). To use your analogy, if there was a specific work called Quality of Service then it would be in caps, but there is not. So it is indeed more like a generic trek through stars. This should not be just a mirror of Cisco manuals, but an encyclopedic article about the concept. Cisco might have one QoS product, (it is fine to capitalize the acronym) but other brands have their own. There are hundreds. See the style guide as mentioned above. W Nowicki (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)