RE: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks

"John Loughney" <john.loughney@kolumbus.fi> Fri, 13 August 2004 09:39 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00444; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:39:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BvYc8-0002IA-8r; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:44:47 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvYR1-0003xy-IG; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:33:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvYL0-0002yf-63 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:27:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00006 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:26:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fep22-0.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.0.60] helo=fep22-app.kolumbus.fi) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BvYQ7-000283-Sw for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:32:21 -0400
Received: from [10.64.93.2] (really [213.161.45.112]) by fep22-app.kolumbus.fi with ESMTP id <20040813092656.BDFT27645.fep22-app.kolumbus.fi@[10.64.93.2]>; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:26:56 +0300
From: John Loughney <john.loughney@kolumbus.fi>
To: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:25:57 +0200
Message-ID: <yj5wLSlmRYKp.ddttKG0P@mail.kolumbus.fi>
X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: i-default
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com
Subject: RE: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: John Loughney <john.loughney@kolumbus.fi>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dean,

Just limiting my reply to one point:

>That relegates RSVP to the enterprise Lan, where it usually isn't 
needed.  
>Remember, RSVP is only useful if you have a congestion problem and 
need to
>choose which packets to discard.  If you have no congestion problem, 
then
>you have no need of RSVP. However, having a congestion problem also 
opens
>the question of the nature of the congestion and what is the best way 
to
>deal that problem.  I was involved in a study done by Genuity and 
Cisco in
>which the congestion problem was found to most often involve the tail
>circuit--the link between the customer and the ISP.  The best solution 
for
>this problem was found to be low latency queuing, not RSVP.

Adding VOIP to an enterprise LAN can often add to congestion. Some on-path signaling can help here - not to mention NAT & FW traversal issues.  RSVP doesn't solve these, but NSIS is looking into these issues.

John


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf