Hi Patrik, all,

On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:44, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based
network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded.
That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results
in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get
whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or
whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3
network.

For me, this boils down to Internet access not typically being sold with any guarantee of minimum service quality. So how do you define degraded? TDC's recent announcement is interesting in this light: http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/17/tdc-introduces-guaranteed-broadband-access-speeds/

I'll also note that BEREC is currently consulting (http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/) on this document:
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2014/3/BoR%20(14)%2024%20Draft%20BEREC%20Report%20on%20NN%20QoS%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf

which includes this:
“BEREC recommends that NRAs increasingly put emphasis on evaluating performance of IAS as a whole, to assess potential degradation due to specialised services.”

Regards,
Mat

If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that?

 Patrik

On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote:

In my opinion, that kind of specialized  services are a VPN. It’s no
Internet.

-----------------------------------------
Innocenzo Genna
*Genna Cabinet Sprl *
1050 Bruxelles - Belgium

Skype: innonews
Twitter:@InnoGenna
Email: inno@innogenna.it <mailto:inno@innogenna.it>

my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/
<http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/>
my music: www.innocenzogenna.com <http://www.innocenzogenna.com>



Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se
<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> ha scritto:

On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote:

On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna <inno@innogenna.it
<mailto:inno@innogenna.it>
<mailto:inno@innogenna.it>> wrote:

15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications
service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services,
or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity
and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not
marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service;
[its application layer is not functionally identical to services and
applications available over the public internet access service;]

And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the
problem?

And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end
network controlled by the service supplier.

I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back.

I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk
about as "specialices service that does not impcat...".

In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all
packets will be forwarded as soon as possible.

If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets
equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N).
If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then
by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get
reordered).

Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can
be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher
than some SLA for end users paying less).

What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example:

- Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their
customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what
other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...)

Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc.

Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have
wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc.

Patrik