[LINK] compelling Content wrecks broadband (was Volume chargi
Mon Nov 25 03:54:09 EST 2002
>I think that the reason that many ISPs don't do QoS is because it's
>a) not implemented by their upstream(s); b) harder to understand than
>"it costs $x for a 45Mbps link" and thus potentially, wetware-wise,
>more expensive initially; c) hardware-wise, quite expensive
>using 'traditional' hardware; and d) not demanded by their customers.
>Of these, (d) is probably the most significant.
I think (b) and (d) are closely related; customers would like QoS if they
could understand it. How circular the argments gets ... put it another way,
how do you coherently ask for something you don't understand?
Re MPLS: which one? The standard MPLS? Or the semi-proprietary
implementations (vendors are acting stupid here. For eg, under MPLS there
are standards for Ethernet encapsulation; but there's also proprietary
Ethernet encapsulation. Both systems comply perfectly well with MPLS, but
not with each other).
It would be nice to have the technology in place >before< we had the IP
application land-grab, just for once.
Why do we need QoS? So the Internet can do voice and video. Why put voice
and video on the Internet? Because when it's got QoS, it will do a better
job of delivering voice and video services. Why hasn't it got QoS now?
Because we need applications to pay for QoS. Which applications? Voice and
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, 25 November 2002 10:24
> To: Glen Turner
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [LINK] compelling Content wrecks broadband (was Volume
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Glen Turner wrote:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > The key problem is that the internet is (a) packet
> switched and, as a
> > > result, (b) a best efforts service.
> > Sitting on a packet-switched network that isn't best-effort
> > for telephony services, I think I could dispute that :-)
> Oh, I don't know whether you could dispute that the Internet is a
> best-effort service :) The 'as a result' part, maybe :)
> > The reason ISPs don't do QoS is that they currently can't
> > provide a good last mile service. Dial-up modem is
> > too slow. Most ISPs lease ADSL service from Telstra, and
> > thus need to wait for Telstra for provide QoS on that service.
> > The ATM-based technology to the ADSL nodes doesn't help,
> > as the IP and ATM QoS models don't cooperate well.
> Some would say 'MPLS is the answer'. I have not enough
> experience with
> MPLS to say for sure.
> You're right in that dialup modem is too slow; heck, for delivery of
> VOD anything less than 1Mbps is too slow.
> I think that the reason that many ISPs don't do QoS is because it's
> a) not implemented by their upstream(s); b) harder to understand than
> "it costs $x for a 45Mbps link" and thus potentially, wetware-wise,
> more expensive initially; c) hardware-wise, quite expensive
> using 'traditional' hardware; and d) not demanded by their customers.
> Of these, (d) is probably the most significant.
> Link mailing list
More information about the Link