> I think your problem, Randy, is that you work in a certain part of the
> network. Notice I have never particularly argued that your part of the
> network has different requirements than you think it has; I suspect you
> understand your part of the network pretty well. But in your part of the
> network, bandwidth is your commodity and your business, and you use enough
> of it to justify laying your own fiber (which you don't)
this will come as a deep shock to at&t's optical transport folk.
> So for you, bandwidth is relatively cheap
actually, there are those who hold that
o retail bandwidth prices are falling at over 32ft/sec/sec
o cost to build/light/provision the bandwidth has held pretty level
o so the bandwidth margins of the fiber-layers are being squeezed
horribly
o the latter would seem to be borne out by the market values of the
more pure fiber sellers, level(3), 360, ... and the lack of orders
to the vendors which supply them
> You then sell your bandwidth to others, but you don't give it to them at
> cost.
indeed, the market seems, for many, to be below cost
> Where I wind up scratching my head is not that you don't want QoS
> technologies, but that you assume that anyone who wants to work on it or
> use it is dense.
i don't. if anyone would read what i wrote, as opposed to mounting it as
if it was a qos soapbox, i specifically and very clearly, well i thought
clearly, restricted my remarks to backbone.
yes, customer access links tend to be underprovisioned. if customers want
to drop packets on those links, not a problem to me. if they want to
greatly complicate their technology to do so, also not a problem to me.
but i don't think i want to base global routing technology on that.
randy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT