Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing

Antoni Przygienda <prz@dnrc.bell-labs.com> Mon, 21 December 1998 20:57 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 PAA11250 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:57:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id PAA07045 for qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:57:02 -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 smtpdCSBa10508; Mon Dec 21 15:18:13 1998
Received: from qmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:06:13 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23340 for qosr-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:50:31 -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 KAA03435 for <qosr@qmaster>; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:59:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02114; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:52:17 -0500
Received: from [138.120.118.49] by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:52:13 -0500
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id KAA04050 for qosr@newbridge.com; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:52:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com(204.178.16.6) via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdAAAa04047; Sun Dec 20 10:52:03 1998
Received: from zubin.dnrc.bell-labs.com ([135.180.130.56]) by dirty; Sun Dec 20 10:50:08 EST 1998
Received: from dnrc.bell-labs.com (root@prz-home [135.180.152.138]) by zubin.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA21838; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <367D1A93.D06C0B54@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:41:07 -0500
From: Antoni Przygienda <prz@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i586)
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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-qosr@newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.
> 
> Am I missing something.
> With Regards
> -Raghu.
> 
>

I am not aware that you can generally trade bandwidth for delay 
(said simply: if you have end-2-end delay constraints to meet & sum of 
your link propagation delays exceeds it, there is little you can do)  
so having arbitrary amounts 
of bandwidth does not necessarily solve the end-2-end delay problem. 



			thank you

			--- tony