North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: QOS or more bandwidth
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > |Prabhu Kavi writes: > | Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add > | capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work. > | For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the > | bright engineers. > > Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think > are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to > spend money on more capacity. > Sounds like we know different sets of bright engineers. My biases are that I worked for a Layer 2 switch vendor at the time, and our IP customers were primarily large ISPs. > What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like > is no longer valid. Neither is what "they" believed about traffic > management. ATM is a tool. Some carriers used this tool in 95-97 for line-rate OC-12 forwarding and TE. Line-rate forwarding at OC-48+ rates is no longer an issue, and TE is available with MPLS, so ATM is not a very useful for IP traffic these days. However, TE is still a necessary tool for some carriers because "they" know it makes better financial sense for them than adding bandwidth. Your mileage may vary. Prabhu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125 Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: [email protected] 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720
|