Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62721AE042 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:29:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, ONE_TIME=0.714, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAsbthml2pwy for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9911ADFCE for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:29:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1156; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385148588; x=1386358188; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=PZXc32baI7EEcScSKZ67KoMoqyI+SZdtuCEBdVtMy64=; b=AdFHFFGGaoUjwUrsdXG1S8RJysvDPjQPGtMabtY7bEEeq43uPd4COTx1 v3keheb24+eJYnRsd7/4ww/97m1GmNmiN+pIYLz9R80tMFPJFzlvpYCps YneqPomN+praGPmb7g/3bqKLIa6uFcLrmN5d2CYyj2WFDNt7g0cilzLYt 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFABKwj1KtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7wVgSIWdIInAQQBAQFrHQEIbQslAgQBEogBDcEiEwSPDoQyA4kKjwqSEoMogio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,753,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="1586292"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 19:29:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAMJTmKO007570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:29:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.192]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:29:47 -0600
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juli=E1n_Fern=E1ndez-Navajas?= <navajas@unizar.es>, "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
Thread-Index: Ac7l26JNd/G0n/QzTnmgW1GPEao+ugAM6JKAAD9swQAAAG6RAAAi9L4AAAxIcQAABesBgP//ijoA
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:29:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CEB4F001.6863%repenno@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <528FA2F5.1050809@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.155.67.189]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <DD5634E5B416E54E83FC3CDF0BA0F301@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:29:57 -0000

I agree.

Increasing bandwidth is a recurring cost, deploying a TCM-TF box is a
one-time investment. In many places the recurring cost of increased
bandwidth will be larger than the price of a TCM-TF box. Given the
possible reduction in bandwidth a TCM-TF box can provide, there will be
some range where it is useful.

-RP 

On 11/22/13, 10:31 AM, "Julián Fernández-Navajas" <navajas@unizar.es>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I want to show my point of view about this sentence: "I fundamentally
>believe in deploying bandwidth instead of deploying boxes that manage
>bandwidth scarcity."
>Perhaps the deploy of bandwidth is preferred instead the TCM-TF but both
>of them are usefull. I don't understand why TCM-TF should be discarded
>because other alternative is better in more situations (but not in all
>situations).
>
>Julián
>
>
>El 22/11/2013 16:41, Eggert, Lars escribió:
>> I fundamentally believe in deploying bandwidth instead of deploying
>>boxes that manage bandwidth scarcity.
>
>_______________________________________________
>tcmtf mailing list
>tcmtf@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf