IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing

Roch Guerin <guerin@ee.upenn.edu> Mon, 21 December 1998 20:24 UTC

Received: from ns.newbridge.com (ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10575 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:24:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id PAA24814 for qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:24:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from portal1.newbridge.com(192.75.23.76), claiming to be "kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com" via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdPGBa14031; Mon Dec 21 15:16:29 1998
Received: from qmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:06:02 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23360 for qosr-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:50:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (distmaster.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.118.27]) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04024 for <qosr@qmaster>; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:23:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02813; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:23:19 -0500
Received: from [138.120.118.49] by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:22:03 -0500
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id MAA06722 for qosr@newbridge.com; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:22:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PENDER.EE.UPENN.EDU(130.91.5.20) via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdAAAa06720; Sun Dec 20 12:21:55 1998
Received: from ee.upenn.edu (slip-129-37-18-146.ny.us.ibm.net [129.37.18.146]) by pender.ee.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA20047; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:21:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <367D2FCC.862C361@ee.upenn.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:11:40 -0500
From: Roch Guerin <guerin@ee.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: "Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <iprsvp@yahoo.com>
CC: routing quality <qosr@newbridge.com>, Internet Protocol <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, MultiProtocol Label Switching <mpls@external.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing
References: <19981220150534.13933.rocketmail@send103.yahoomail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------ACB4A20C98311955CA9495CD"
Sender: owner-qosr@newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk


Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I have one basic question regarding QoS routing.
>
> Do we need QoS routing if we have enough infinite (I mean
> large ) bandwidth.
>
> >From my poor knowledge:
>
> We need QoS routing b'cos we have limited BW and we want
> to give priority to QoS flows. If some one comes with
> a Tx system which supports 100s Gb/s,(say 128 channel WDM system)
> Do we need to support the "special"  status for the QoS flows.
> May in that case the memory at the routers will be
> bottleneck.

Besides the delay issue that Tony mentions, you should also consider
that tx bandwidth is not the only resource inolved in delivering your
data.  You also need switches/routers that can keep up with the
bandwidth, and if they don't they are the resource you need to focus on,
i.e., you need to consider the forwarding tput available rather than
just the raw bandwidth.

Roch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email