At 10:02 AM 12/18/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 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.
sorry; I missed the restriction to the backbone. I thought I read a
statement that said "I don't get it, I don't understand why anyone thinks
about QoS", something about folks paying you to not drop their packets
*anywhere*, which would include your link to them. It sounded to me like
you were mounted on the usual QoS-is-stupid soapbox.
Who was it that argued that one needs QoS in the backbone? Like you, most
folks in the backbone swamp the problem with bandwidth, so that the
statistical benefit of additional technology doesn't particularly make
sense. The place where I mostly find service providers using it is in their
access paths (although one could discuss MPLS COS; we're not developing it
in a market vacuum). The place I find enterprises using it is in the
inter-campus links.
There are several ways to look at Henning's graph. One is to say "they
obviously should purchase more bandwidth". I don't think you will find any
argument that the money would be well spent. They may not have the money,
though, or they may consider other priorities of theirs to be higher (maybe
it is largely traffic that if they could turn off they would, or they
simply have other areas that are more critical), or they may deem a link
that is 100% utilized much of the day to be acceptable. Or, considering the
monthly graph, they may consider the current load to be a relatively new
phenomenon, and the level of congestion to be something they are dealing
with until the bandwidth they have on order arrives. This last is the most
probable reality.
In any event, if they have a desire to run specific applications with
stated behavior characteristics, it's not going to happen by itself.
I'm off the soap-box. Can we talk about routing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT