Re: Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: Th e Qo s PipeDream]

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

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 QoS frobs to generate
additional revenue will help you out.

:-)

$.02,

- ferg


-- Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com> wrote:

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 application is not exactly a win-win
proposal either.  The problem with religious dogma is it leads to
a lot of burning people at the stake, for more stupid analogies.

Finding the right blend of what applications can do well, what the network
can do well, and how they interact is the challange.

For example, smart applications don't handle DDOS attacks very well, and
regardless of how much network capacity you provision, there is always a
DDOS that is bigger.

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/