Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: QOS Author is Motorola, Chief Software Architect
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:43:00 -0700
________________________________________ From: Patrick W. Gilmore [patrick () ianai net] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:20 AM To: David Farber; Waclawsky John-A52165 Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: [IP] QOS Author is Motorola, Chief Software Architect This post shows what I have found to be a common problem in arguments around QoS / NN / traffic on the Internet in general. Please, please, please everyone, stop thinking "fiber" == "bandwidth". It does not.
From: Waclawsky John-A52165 [jgw () motorola com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 1:08 AM
Hi Dave, Some QoS perspectives that I have learned: First, the main problem. QoS really isn't needed when you have big pipes. The Internet has plenty of capacity and most applications don't really need huge amounts of bandwidth to work well. Go to: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/021507-dont-expect-video.html and read the 5th paragraph. It begins with "In the long haul....". So what is the average utilization of these big pipes. ...single digits???, and for lots of good reasons. I used to professionally work on this stuff in another life and what I remember about it below and I think most, if not all of it, still applies.
That article was written in February of 2007. The Internet look very little like it did over a year ago, so I am not sure I would quote that article today. But one thing on the 'Net is the same as 1 or even 5 years ago: The amount of glass in the ground has little to do with the bits transmitted on it. Saying there is plenty of fiber is not a useful way to quantify bandwidth. That is like saying there is plenty of land on either side of the freeway, so why is there traffic congestion? Actually, it's worse than that. Imagine your commute from home to work every day takes you through stop-and-go traffic. Now imagine someone tells you there is a strip of freeway 10 miles long with no development on either side which isn't even on your way to work. Finally imagine he then claims this proves you should not have to stop once from your driveway to your desk. What exactly would you say to that person?
The main problem I see is with the term itself: "QoS" is NOT about Quality and it is NOT about Service. It is about billing!
You are just as wrong as the people who say it is all about quality & service. There is a problem they are trying to solve. Being good for- profit companies, Internet backbones try to solve their problems _and_ make money at the same time. In fact, making more money helps them remove the root problem (CapEx/OpEx of running a network large enough to support all bits). It is not either/or. [SNIP] Interesting claims. I note the complete lack of data to back up your claim. I really don't have the time to look at each of your points and explain why they are right or wrong. I just have a single question for you: Have you actually priced out the cost of additional DWDM chassises, shelves, rackspace, power, cooling, then the additional router chassises, ports, rackspace, power, cooling, the addtional engineers to operate said equipment, etc. vs. turning on a feature extant in the routers you own today and administering it in a global manner to guarantee "QoS"? I would bet significant cash you have not. You don't like QoS, fine. Not sure I like it either. But your post is not a useful rebuttal against the realities facing network providers. To be clear, of COURSE some providers are claiming things which are obviously silly, or creating the very problems they claim are insurmountable. However, there are lots of problems which are hard (or at least require tons of money) to solve. Focusing on the former case does not make the latter case go away. And unless you can address both cases, your argument is not useful. I haven't found a way to address both cases. Hopefully some smart person will. And soon. (But I'm not holding my breath.) -- TTFN, patrick ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- QOS Author is Motorola, Chief Software Architect David Farber (Jun 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: QOS Author is Motorola, Chief Software Architect David Farber (Jun 23)
- Re: QOS Author is Motorola, Chief Software Architect David Farber (Jun 23)