IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: (IPng 6939) Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing

Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Tue, 22 December 1998 00:03 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 TAA14261 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:03:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id QAA08371 for qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:00:13 -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 smtpdKJBa17598; Mon Dec 21 15:21:11 1998
Received: from qmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:06:24 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23447 for qosr-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:51:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com (kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.118.18]) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA20824 for <qosr@qmaster.ca.newbridge.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:19:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [138.120.118.49] by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:19:53 -0500
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id NAA28545 for qosr@newbridge.com; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:19:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UNKNOWN(131.227.102.10), claiming to be "maile.surrey.ac.uk" via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdAAAa28531; Mon Dec 21 13:19:49 1998
Received: from petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk by maile.surrey.ac.uk with SMTP-external (PP); Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:19:06 +0000
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:19:21 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Sender: eep1lw@petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk
Reply-To: qosr@newbridge.com
To: Parag M Panse <parag@utdallas.edu>
cc: Masilamany Raguparan <ragu@krdl.org.sg>, "Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <iprsvp@yahoo.com>, routing quality <qosr@newbridge.com>, Internet Protocol <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, MultiProtocol Label Switching <mpls@external.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: (IPng 6939) Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981221000646.9592A-100000@apache.utdallas.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.981221181717.8018I-100000@petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: speaking for none
X-URL: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
X-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-qosr@newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Parag M Panse wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Masilamany Raguparan wrote:
> 
> > Raghu,
> > 
> > | 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. 
> > 
> > Nature of the traffic can be very bursty and suck up your 100s of Gb/s
> > bandwidth easily at any given time slot. Therefore, having just large bit
> > pipes does not solve the QoS problem. 
> > 
> > Your delay = propagation time + queuing time + processing time equation
> > certainly works, if you have enough capacity left on the link at the time
> > of your request.
> 
> An implicit assumption that seems to be made here is regarding 'number of
> data sources'. 

A second assumption is that this is appropriate to all the lists it's
being cc'd to.

Followups set to qosr only; give those of us subscribed to all the
lists a break.

L.

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email