North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Hmm. Let me one more word. Very short. And I promise to be quiet anymore. When I order bandwidth, I got BANDWIDTH. Just what I asked. When I install RSVP and QoS software tricks, what will I have? Nothing predictable - it can work, it can not work, it can work for months and then destroy itself. The density of bugs increase every months (true for CISCO, true for MS, I think it's true for other vendors). Result? How can sales people use something mistical? They prefer to get solid and simple way - order bandwidth. On Tue, 18 May 1999, Steve Riley (MCS) wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:02:28 -0700 > From: Steve Riley (MCS) <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS? > > > Hmm. It was interesting to read the various replies both on the list and > personal. A number of people pointed out, rightly, that I'm thinking of the > USA. That's true. They further gave examples of the exhorbitant costs that > people elsewhere in the world pay for connections. While I certainly > understand the desire to use some form of QoS to squeeze every bit of > capacity from expensive skinny pipes, I believe that it is wrong to try to > use a technological solution (usually poorly understood and implemented) to > solve what is primarily a political problem. There is absolutely no > technological reason why international rates are so much higher than > domestic US rates. > > Regarding the idea of "free bandwidth," that's not what I said. I said that > bandwidth is "essentially free." Of course there will always be a cost for > bandwidth. But consider for a moment what's happened to disk storage. In > 1990 I purchased my first PC. I paid $550 for an 80 MB hard drive -- that's > $6.875 per megabyte. Today you can purchase a 25 GB hard drive for $450 -- > that's $0.018 per megabyte. That's a 31,250% increase in capacity > accompanied by a 99.73% reduction in price per megabyte. So you see, on a > per megabyte basis, storage is "essentially free." The same thing has > happened to CPU and memory. It will happen to bandwidth, too, and in many > cases already has. > > For a time I worked in information technology architecture. One of the > tennents of that field is that it's always cheaper to trade capacity for > staff. You can overbuild now, while planning for growth, and save money over > the alternative of continually tweaking and making minor improvements and > upgrades which requires expensive time and personnel. QoS is an acceptable > idea which in certain specific situations might be suitable for solving an > existing problem. But since QoS is expensive to manage it simply is not > viable in the long term. We in the networking and telecommunications > industries need to redirect our energy away from bandages and instead toward > making abundant bandwidth readily available to everyone. > > _________________________________________________________ > Steve Riley > Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado > email: mailto:[email protected] > call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) > page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:[email protected] > Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in > the correct screw. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 4:29 PM > To: [email protected]; Steve Riley (MCS) > Subject: RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS? > > > Steve Riley (MCS) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS > >hype. > > Er... me, agreeing with someone from Microsoft? Yeech! (just kidding :) > > >Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid > >Network." > > Unfortunately that paper oversimplifies the whole congestion control > issue by completely ignoring the fact that data traffic has a > heavy-tailed distribution. Which pretty much means that no matter > how much capacity is there, as long as there's oversubscription > there will be at least transient traffic jams. > > Which means that the issue of what to do with different types > of traffic when there's a congestion cannot be just pooh-poohed. > > The big problem with G.711 and its progeny is the lack of effective > cooperative congestion control which would guarantee network stability > (like TCP does). Fortunately, the bulk of network traffic is > "canned" content, which can (and should) be transmitted with TCP. > > --vadim > > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)