One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.
And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps
limits when handling
Chris Woodfield wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit
than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have
seen cases of older line cards approaching their
On 18/12/05, Chris Woodfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on abits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.And I have seen cases of older line cards
Joe Maimon wrote:
Chris Woodfield wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.
And I have seen cases of older line cards
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip applications
often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length to the actuall
average rtt could have a positive effect on pps throughput.
What is your suggestion? High latency
Jay Hennigan wrote:
VoIP by design will have high PPS per connection as opposed to data flows.
At 20 ms sample rates you have 50 pps regardless of the CODEC or algorithm.
Increasing the time per sample to 40 ms would cut this in half but the
added
latency would result in degraded
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip
applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length
to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps
throughput.
What is your
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.edunanog@merit.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005
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/dmm-queueing.pdf
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
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 spend
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
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]
snip
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
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.
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
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]
some harsher labels for it, too.
Cheers,
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: Fergie; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it.
But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you
can't
To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
Randy-
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed
On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you
can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call.
Absolutely.
But if the carrier tunes their network so you will never get a busy
signal when calling into
Hi Benson,
Okay -- forget about banks, forget about other comparative
analogies -- let's talk about the Internet.
I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said
something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS
should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort'
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote:
I think Bill Manning hit on it a couple of days ago; Bill said
something about the Internet being about best effort and QoS
should be (various) levels of 'better-than-best effort' -- and
anything less that best effort is _not_ the Internet.
ATT, Global
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
What do they mean by QoS? Is it IntServ, DiffServ, PVCs, the law of
averages or
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
What do they mean by QoS? Is it
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind
me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really
after. DoS protection. By focusing on DoS mitigation instead of
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind
me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really
after. DoS
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
Regards;
Marshall
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec
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.
and i wonder who is selling that need?
randy
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush 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.
and
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:52:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM
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.
and i wonder who is selling that need?
the wierd
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush 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.
and i
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/dmm-queueing.pdf
incase you type not paste.
Martin,
You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality
does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course.
QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist.
What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best-
effort is somehow good? Never sell it.
This vein will come back and bite you
Hey there Fergie:
Martin,
You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality
does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course.
QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist.
What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best-
effort is somehow good? Never sell it.
This
Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion
or is never busy.
s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/
would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some
bandwidth. we should
41 matches
Mail list logo
