IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reg: Quality of Service routing

Masilamany Raguparan <ragu@krdl.org.sg> 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 PAA10585 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:24:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id PAA24556 for qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:24:03 -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 smtpdGFBa14031; Mon Dec 21 15:15:32 1998
Received: from qmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:05:59 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23432 for qosr-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:51:15 -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 TAA07740 for <qosr@qmaster>; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:57:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06182; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:57:48 -0500
Received: from [138.120.118.49] by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:57:39 -0500
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id TAA21415 for qosr@newbridge.com; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rodin.krdl.org.sg(137.132.252.27), claiming to be "krdl.org.sg" via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdAAAa21399; Sun Dec 20 19:57:29 1998
Received: from mailhost.krdl.org.sg (mailbox.krdl.org.sg [137.132.247.30]) by krdl.org.sg (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA07388; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:53:05 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from fireball (fireball [137.132.248.126]) by mailhost.krdl.org.sg (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA28957; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:47:31 +0800 (SGT)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:28:24 +0800
From: Masilamany Raguparan <ragu@krdl.org.sg>
X-Sender: ragu@fireball
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
In-Reply-To: <19981220150534.13933.rocketmail@send103.yahoomail.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9812210819550.26497-100000@fireball>
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,

| 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.


| May in that case the memory at the routers will be
| bottleneck. 

This problem is well addressed in the previous answers from Roch & others

Ragu.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email