""Zsombor Papp"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorte wrote: > > after viewing the presentation, you tell me - is > > this not saying > > that 5 megabits is more than adequate for voice, video, etc? > > I don't think that was the point of the presention. Regardless, I can tell > you that 5Mbps is enough for voice. :) For video, it depends on the quality.
30 frame per second video over ISDN requires 3 ISDN lines ( 6 B-channels ) for a total of 384K. I've spoken about video over WAN links on several occasions with the video guy in my group. He tells me he likes to reserve 500K over T1's typically. Howard, if your reading, I just looked over my unsent drafts of the question regarding bandwidth, and the point I failed to raise in this posted thread is that of global synchronization. One of the major benefits of such QoS mechanisms as RED and WRED is that the phenomenon of global synch can be controlled, meaning a more efficient use of bandwidth ( no periods of congestion followed by periods of low activity because of the TCP backoff mechanisms ) Now supposing, even in a contention medium, I could fine tune my queueing such that I no longer suffered from global synch. I set my voice queues and my delay sensative queues such that sufficient badwidth was available, and I used RED or WRED for the general queue. I'm wondering if there are studies done, papers in the IETF working groups demonstrating that given proper queueing mechanisms that less bandwidth is required or necessary? Cisco does offer downstream only QoS on their wireless product line. Not sure I understand the mechanism completely, but I have to believe it is based on enough solid study such that given a reasonable design, there would be less concern for voice in the mix. Recall that Cisco will soon be releasing their own wireless IP phone, and the whole point of it is to provide untethered mobility throughout an enterprise. > > > I'm just asking - if people are more productive, > > despite the obvious lack of bandwidth, and > > despite the step back to a contention medium, > > is there something to be said about the > > perceived need for 100 megabits to the desktop? > > I agree with Fred, such a perception is probably misguided in most cases. > Most people are very happy even with their 1.5Mbps DSL line. But all this > depends on what you want to do. Full-screen DVD quality video won't work > over DSL. Even online gaming could use more than 1.5Mbps. FWIW, I've heard > that in Korea, there is a serious market for dedicated 100Mbps connections > to the *home* due to wide-spread online gaming (I don't know if this is > true, I find it a bit hard to believe). can't comment much regarding the needs of on-line gaming, but the guy teaching the wireless class two weeks ago said he was an avvid on line gamer and that his DSL was plenty fine for what he did. He also said he had a couple friends around his neighborhood who did on-line gaming via a sireless AP that he set up for their use. Don't know the particular game, so I can say as to whether it is the same one you play. > > Also consider that pure 10Mbps Ethernet interfaces are getting pretty rare; > most of the Ethernet interfaces are 10/100. So in a campus network, in most > cases, there is no real reason to not have 100Mbps to the desktop. indeed. and with three teenage boys around the house, I am happy to sell lots of these things in order to keep the refridgerator full. ;-> yes, Mr Customer, you never can tell when your users will need this bandwidth, what with internet radio, lots of databases out there on the web, and all the e-mail attachments people need to read to get their work done. ;-> > > Thanks, > > Zsombor Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72678&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
