- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Frame-relay outage: Nolo Contendere
by George William Herbert 29 May '01

29 May '01

FYI, at least some of this outage has yet to be restored; I have several aquaintences who went down and still are. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

1 0

Re: Tucows/OpenSRS Down
by George William Herbert 29 May '01

29 May '01

Roeland writes: >ICANN does not consider operations issues pertinent. It is a policy org. >ICANN does not have clue. I would like to comment that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former, though all three are technically true. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

1 0

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by Ukyo Kuonji 29 May '01

29 May '01

How is TE part of QoS? Maybe we are talking a different type of TE. To me, TE is the part that the traffic takes, not really what queue it sits in to transmit. I could see a arguement for QoS being part of TE, but... (Assuming that you TE your netword so there is no conjestion.) --- Opinions in this email are the personal opinions of the author and are not associated with author's employer. This email account is a not the regular email account of the author and is being used for the protection of the employer. --- Original Message --- Everything that you said is correct. However, you missed one important part of QoS, which is TE. TE is about avoiding congestion in the first place by more efficiently using all of the bandwidth you already have in the network. To that extent, it is a substitute for adding more pipe. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

2 1

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by Kavi, Prabhu 29 May '01

29 May '01

Everything that you said is correct. However, you missed one important part of QoS, which is TE. TE is about avoiding congestion in the first place by more efficiently using all of the bandwidth you already have in the network. To that extent, it is a substitute for adding more pipe. Prabhu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125 Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: prabhu_kavi(a)tenornetworks.com 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720 > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall@ehsco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:20 PM > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: QOS or more bandwidth > > > > > > So, what problem is QoS solving? > > QoS is about choosing the packets that you are willing to > drop or delay > when congestion arises. If you aren't willing to drop/delay > any of them, > then you must over-provision. > > Regarding the existant thread, adding engineers and equipment will not > give you more bandwidth, but instead it allows you to be more > efficient in > your packet disposal routines. They are not a substitue for pipe. > > -- > Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

1 0

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by Kavi, Prabhu 29 May '01

29 May '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Kruckenberg [mailto:pete@kruckenberg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:10 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: QOS or more bandwidth <snip> > > Voice-over-IP benefits from statistical multiplexing as > much, if not moreso, than any other application. A > toll-quality voice call runs at ~5-6kbps (factoring silence > suppression and RTP header compression) vs. 8kbps across > compressed TDM. Do you mean G.723.1? Let's put aside that some people do not consider G.723.1 to be toll-quality. Ignoring that, I would call your 5-6 kbps number to be compression rather than statistical multiplexing. The voice packets still come out periodically every 30ms or so. The only significant statistical multiplexing you get with voice is due to silence suppression. Also, how do you actually achieve 5-6 kbps when you consider the IP overhead? Prabhu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125 Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: prabhu_kavi(a)tenornetworks.com 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720

2 1

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by Kavi, Prabhu 29 May '01

29 May '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: smd(a)clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org] > |Prabhu Kavi writes: > | Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add > | capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work. > | For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the > | bright engineers. > > Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think > are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to > spend money on more capacity. > Sounds like we know different sets of bright engineers. My biases are that I worked for a Layer 2 switch vendor at the time, and our IP customers were primarily large ISPs. > What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like > is no longer valid. Neither is what "they" believed about traffic > management. ATM is a tool. Some carriers used this tool in 95-97 for line-rate OC-12 forwarding and TE. Line-rate forwarding at OC-48+ rates is no longer an issue, and TE is available with MPLS, so ATM is not a very useful for IP traffic these days. However, TE is still a necessary tool for some carriers because "they" know it makes better financial sense for them than adding bandwidth. Your mileage may vary. Prabhu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125 Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: prabhu_kavi(a)tenornetworks.com 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720

1 0

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by smd＠clock.org 29 May '01

29 May '01

Prabhu Kavi writes: | Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add | capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work. | For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the | bright engineers. Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to spend money on more capacity. They are also the people _least_ likely to be impressed by money as the currency "to pay for" them. Being taken seriously despite having very non-bell-head ideas, and having an environment in which traditional thinking does not win every argument, is usually much more important. I've done some non-TE work for a couple of networks, and the only bandwidth-constraint they have run into on the technical front has been switching capacity of routers. Yeah, you sometimes have to fight to "remove" fun features like 1+1 protection and monitoring, but this can be done even in the most traditional of telcos, as demonstrated by various people over the years. | Of course, the same amount of bandwidth they had then | would now cost much less, and be considered a small network, | and the results today could well be different. In my necks of the woods the retail pricing of international TDM (PDH, SDH, WDM) capacity eroded something like this: 1993 - T1 capacity, 9-12 cents/channel-mile 1994 - T3 capacity, 6-9 cents/channel-mile 1995 - OC3 capacity, 3-4 cents/channel-mile 1997 - (intl) E3/T3, midpoint, $4M (US) we don't count in channel-miles ... 2001 - $4M (US) gets you a multi-city optical subnet at 2.5Gbps What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like is no longer valid. Neither is what "they" believed about traffic management. | 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Wow I misread this street address several times... lysdexia, I guess. Sean.

1 0

Re: last mile capacity [was Re: QOS or more bandwidth]
by Sean Donelan 29 May '01

29 May '01

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Sean M. Doran wrote: > The correct way of solving this was demonstrated in Stockholm > and duplicated in a handful of Canadian cities. In the first case, > the City of Stockholm "nationalized" the laying down of dark fibre > in the city, and formed an agency (http://www.stokab.se/english/) which > provides unlit/unrepeated/unamplified dark fibre between any pair > of addresses in Stockholm at cost as a public utility. On the other hand, Palo Alto California demonstrates the folly of relying on government to lay fiber optic pipes.

2 1

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 29 May '01

29 May '01

We have done some testing of VoIP across a 802.11b wireless connection, and it appears to be pretty decent, but it really depends on the quantity of the wireless connection. The biggest problem we have run across is jitter... Spencer **************************************************** Spencer Wood, Network Administrator Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 815.361.0714 **************************************************** Eric Whitehill <eric(a)botbay.net> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 05/29/2001 01:42 PM To: Bill Woodcock <woody(a)zocalo.net> cc: RJ Atkinson <rja(a)inet.org>, <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: RE: QOS or more bandwidth I know of someone who is trying to do a VOIP system over a wireless network - they are having limited success, but when they did some packet switching magic, it seemed to help some, but last I checked they are still having issues with it dropping calls and the phone system constantly resetting. Is VOIP really ready for such practices as to allow business to totally rely on VOIP in this matter? ok ok a little off topic ;-) -Eric On Tue, 29 May 2001, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) > From: Bill Woodcock <woody(a)zocalo.net> > To: RJ Atkinson <rja(a)inet.org> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: QOS or more bandwidth > > > > Whenever I did the cost of deploying and managing fancy QoS > > and compared it with the cost of getting and managing more capacity, > > it was always MUCH MUCH cheaper to get and manage more capacity > > than to mess with more QoS. > > We did one VoIP network deployment, and I tried each of the different QoS > services in IOS at that time (about 18 months ago) both in the lab and in > the field, and more bandwidth was the answer then. > > -Bill > > >

1 0

last mile capacity [was Re: QOS or more bandwidth]
by smd＠clock.org 29 May '01

29 May '01

Irwin Lazar <ILazar(a)tbg.com> writes | In our | area, we're also seeing a lot of pushback against the continued tearing up | of streets to lay additional fiber, so QoS may become the only option to | meet required service levels. The correct way of solving this was demonstrated in Stockholm and duplicated in a handful of Canadian cities. In the first case, the City of Stockholm "nationalized" the laying down of dark fibre in the city, and formed an agency (http://www.stokab.se/english/) which provides unlit/unrepeated/unamplified dark fibre between any pair of addresses in Stockholm at cost as a public utility. Thus, instead of a dozen or so CLEC-style companies ripping up the same set of streets, Stokab does it approximately once, and provides fibre pairs as necessary to these companies, and any other buyers who come along (lots of corporate buyers use Stokab instead of the traditional telcos or CLECs). This approach has been an unqualified success for Stockholm, which thanks in large part to Stokab's establishment in 1994, has been *the* intersting place to do Internet stuff through most of the years since then, despite the city's geographical remoteness and small population. The major drawback of existing dark fibre utility agencies is their management's tendency to try to be innovative - Stokab for example sometimes appears (misguidedly!) to want to move up the value chain into services their buyers are offering, and into new experimental things involving media other than fibre (e.g. radio). If a single "nationalized" supplier of dark fibre slows down or becomes more expensive as a result of this, it will cease to be a market-enabling success, and start to look like the sort of constraint on the last-mile market that former PTTs are imposing on their captive market. (And then yeah you're back to digging up more streets or using QoS or whatever, sigh.) So, a good idea is to press your local government into duplicating Stokab (it really IS good for you), but stop your local equivalent from ever hiring someone with a bell-shaped-head or technology fetish. Sean.

4 3