Oops. Forgot one: Number of respondents that mentioned that ISP's haven't quite figured out non-QoS services yet: 2 - paul At 01:56 PM 05/28/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[snip]
Number of respondents: 19
Number of respondents who felt that better QoS 'knobs' were needed in the routers: 4
Number of respondents who felt that admission control and policing functionality was required: 2
Number of respondents who feel that QoS granularity at the IP source/destination and/or tcp/udp port level is sufficient: 2
Number of respondents that indicated that QoS should have the granularity to differentiate with per-flow granularity: 1
Number of respondents who need QoS differentiation for enhanced economic factors (charge more money): 4
Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS isn't interesting due to over-engineering: 2
Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS would indeed be interesting if they were congested: 1
Number of respondents that indicated that congestion management needs to be an integral part of any QoS implementation: 1
Number of respondents who indicated that until QoS routing was available, QoS was not interesting: 1
Number of respondents who indicated that inter-domain QoS transit was a major stumbling block: 6
Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP by name: 3
Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP in a favorable tone: 2
Number of respondents who indicated that QoS implementations, whatever they may be, needs to be pervasive, to include hosts: 2
Number of respondents who indicated that billing & accounting systems need to be developed for QoS: 4
Number of respondents who indicated that the term 'QoS' is too ambiguous: 2
Number of respondents who indicated they expect guaranteed delivery in a QoS implementation: 0
[snip]