Re: [summary] Re: QoS/CoS interest

[Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>]

Oops. Forgot one:

Number of respondents that mentioned that ISP's haven't
quite figured out non-QoS services yet: 2

- paul

At 01:56 PM 05/28/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> [snip]
>
> Number of respondents: 19
>
> Number of respondents who felt that better QoS 'knobs' were
> needed in the routers: 4
>
> Number of respondents who felt that admission control and
> policing functionality was required: 2
>
> Number of respondents who feel that QoS granularity at the
> IP source/destination and/or tcp/udp port level is
> sufficient: 2
>
> Number of respondents that indicated that QoS should have
> the granularity to differentiate with per-flow granularity: 1
>
> Number of respondents who need QoS differentiation for
> enhanced economic factors (charge more money): 4
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS
> isn't interesting due to over-engineering: 2
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS
> would indeed be interesting if they were congested: 1
>
> Number of respondents that indicated that congestion
> management needs to be an integral part of any QoS
> implementation: 1
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that until QoS
> routing was available, QoS was not interesting: 1
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that inter-domain
> QoS transit was a major stumbling block: 6
>
> Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP
> by name: 3
>
> Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP
> in a favorable tone: 2
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that QoS implementations,
> whatever they may be, needs to be pervasive, to include hosts: 2
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that billing & accounting
> systems need to be developed for QoS: 4
>
> Number of respondents who indicated that the term 'QoS' is
> too ambiguous: 2
>
> Number of respondents who indicated they expect guaranteed
> delivery in a QoS implementation: 0
>
> [snip]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -