On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more
pipe) more than anything else.
Yes. Best effort should be something to aspire to, not "worse than carrier
grade"
-Original Message-
From: "Sean Donelan"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 16/12/2005 00:15:49
To: "nanog@merit.edu"
Cc:
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Fergie wr
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:16:17 + (GMT)
"Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf
> >
>
> oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone?
>
> also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/
> most large networks (as was said a few times I think) don't really need
it
> in their cores. I think I've seen a nice presentation regarding the
> queuing delay induced on 'large pipe' networks, basically showing that
qos
> is pointless if your links are +ds3 and not 100% full. Someone might
This report has been generated at Fri Dec 16 21:46:24 2005 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
* Sean Donelan:
> AT&T, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
> QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
> backbone is "better than Best-Effort."
Well, are you sure these traffic classes are actually enforced at the
router level? Maybe it's just a di
All:
I did not sent this crap to the list.
As has happened before, someone obviously thinks it's funny to
spam the list from a web-based e-mailer at tribuneinteractive
with my name.
- ferg
-- Forwarded Message --
This story was sent to you by: Fergie
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Actually, for actual implementation, there are subtle differences between
> AS 0x0002 ans AS 0x0002. True, they are the same AS in 16 and 32 bit
> representation, and, for allocation policy, they are the same, but, in
> actual router guts, there are
I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-)
I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme
in the VoIP application, plus a 'semi-lossless' link, would be just
fine. ;-)
Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
analogy? Not meaning t
So somebody is again playing silly buggers, forwarding articles to
nanog under fergie's name?
On 12/16/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This story was sent to you by: Paul "Fergie" Ferguson
>
>
> Grant vs. Stern: animosity or respect?
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote:
Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick all
of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win
proposal.
Yes, in a perfect world you're correct, bu
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote:
> Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
> analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick
> all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win
> proposal.
Trying to stick it all in the applicatio
I certainly don't endorse placing _all_ of the intelligence
in the application, but look at it this way -- if you expect
to have a 'stupid' CPE handset rely on 'intelligence' in the
network for voice quality, you're probably going to be disappointed.
And no amount of leveraging smoke-and-mirror Q
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Fergie wrote:
I certainly don't endorse placing _all_ of the intelligence
in the application, but look at it this way -- if you expect
to have a 'stupid' CPE handset rely on 'intelligence' in the
network for voice quality, you're probably going to be disappointed.
Is this personal or just a creative way of sending spam?
It could have been anybody hitting the "send this article to a friend" button.
Nevertheless, you might be able to find the guys ip, if he really angers you.
Maybe his boss is on the list too :)
Cheers
Peter and Karin
Thus spake "Fergie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-)
I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme
in the VoIP application, plus a 'semi-lossless' link, would be just
fine. ;-)
Any competent VoIP application/device develo
As I wrote in a later message, that's more along the
lines of what I was talking about. :-)
Cheers,
- ferg
-- "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-)
>
> I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme
> i
Thus spake "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spe
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Adaptive jitter buffers are old technology; Skype is hardly the first
company to use them. Most phones and softphones have them; it's the
gateways at the other end that are usually stuck with static ones.
Personally I find the delay of the mobile
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 17 Dec, 2005
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
hey :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher L. Morrow
> Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 10:29 PM
> To: John Kristoff
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
>
> sni
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 23:31, Randy Bush wrote:
> would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
> their money back?
Not taking into account the FDIC, we already have that, since banks are only
required to keep 10% of any given depositor's monies.
> we're selling delivery
On Friday 16 December 2005 09:21, Fergie wrote:
> Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
> analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick
> all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win
> proposal.
A stupid network is easier
Thus spake "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote:
Not 100% true. Through I agree QoS has little impact in the core
that has OCxx non-congested backbone (more comments below). In the
edge, it does has its place, as Stephen Sprunk and Mikael Abrahamsson
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> Maybe part of the discussion problem here is the overbroad use of 'QOS in
> the network!' ? Perhaps saying, which I think people have, that QOS
Probably. Users, executives and reporters are rarely careful talking
about the technical details. T
Sean,
And let's see: What was the problem again? ;-)
Oh, yeah -- some telco execs want to degrade traffic in their
networks based on __. (Fill in the blank.)
- ferg
-- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> Maybe part of the discus
Agreed.
Although my preference is (as you stated earlier) 'graceful
degradation' in the face of congestion, not intentional degradation
of traffic based on some arbitrary monetray boundary.
Again, there should never be a case for _intentional_ "less-
than-best-effort", in the traditional sense.
Bingo.
Very well stated.
- ferg
-- Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
On the operational end, the challenge becomes designing networks that in the
presence of ubiquitous oversubscription degrade gracefully and allow certain
features to have lesser degradation. Thus QoS.
[snip]
28 matches
Mail list logo
