At 09:46 AM 5/22/97 -0500, bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca wrote:
There still exists major problems with bandwidth in an around major metropolitan areas like Chicago and NY
In our attempts to secure fiber we are quite often frustrated by local availability problems. But it is not restricted to local. There are still inter-city problem areas too.
In Canada, we have been very fortunate in having excess fibre capacity in and around our major metropolitan areas, with more coming on line every day. The problem has become so acute, that in Toronto we probably have the lowest ATM circuit prices anywhere in North America.
I could *really* like Toronto :-) [if I can live in San Diego in Winter]
In Montreal the local university GigaPOP consortium is pulling their own 40 strand fibre through the city ducts at a cost less than one year's tariff that the carrier wanted for a DS3 connection between these same institutions.
The question in my mind is how long will it take to get QoS/CoS working effectively over heterogenous networks with all the related business issues of settlements, etc versus how long it will take for the facilities
In my town, a major manufacturer put in their own SONET rings. They hired the same construction companies who put it in the ground for the TELCOs and CABLE companies. providers
to plow new fibre into the ground?
Private discussions of this topic abound. We always come to these observations. My discsusions with others in research and network planning has yeilded similar concerns. I really wonder if anyone really cares about this enough to propose a preliminary service model with the corresponding business Ts & Cs. My belief is that if a wide spread agreement can be reached on the business issues, then the technology-builders will respond rapidly. In the meantime, we will continue to see differentiated quality of service only in: 1. Private network segements (Intranets) 2. L2 supported VPN with ATM QoS 3. Virtual QoS [i.e. over public networks with your fingers crossed]
If the fibre shortage is resolved quickly and all these promised WDM and optical technologies come to pass than the QoS/CoS business issues may prove to be an interesting technical challenge but never get wide commercial deployment.
Bill
I hope that Paul's collections of comments (public and private) will be summarized for this community. However, it would be interesting to see the discussion broadly published in Internet trade press with a clear statement of the issues with a WWW mechanism to reply with a yes-mabey-no statement of interest. I encourage this consumer polling because I do not assume opinions of NANOG readers are representative of opinions in the business market. ..mike.. Mike Trest EMAIL: trest@atmnet.net ATMnet VOICE: 619 643 1805 5440 Morehouse Drive #3700 FAX: 619 643 1801 San Diego, CA USA 92121 BEEP: 619 960 9070
At 08:47 AM 05/22/97 -0700, Mike Trest wrote:
In our attempts to secure fiber we are quite often frustrated by local availability problems. But it is not restricted to local. There are still inter-city problem areas too.
Ironically, Bill passed along this interesting pointer earlier this morning: http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~jst/TransPrice.html As an aside, Jon Turner was our (architecture) WG chair at the NGI workshop a couple of weeks ago. - paul
At 08:47 AM 05/22/97 -0700, Mike Trest wrote:
I hope that Paul's collections of comments (public and private) will be summarized for this community. However, it would be interesting to see the discussion broadly published in Internet trade press with a clear statement of the issues with a WWW mechanism to reply with a yes-mabey-no statement of interest.
I encourage this consumer polling because I do not assume opinions of NANOG readers are representative of opinions in the business market.
Some of the responses I received on this issue were copied to the list, others were not. I've summarized the responses below, and taken the liberty of boiling down the results. I'm not really enthusiastic about the volume of responses I received, but I suppose it's better than none. What this indicates to me is that the majority of you have no opinion on the matter of QoS or are simply not interested. I will probably post the same questions to the cisco@spot mailing list [USENET: comp.dcom.sys.cisco] to get a representative sampling of non-Internet -related (corporate) perspectives. Enjoy. - paul [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]
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]
participants (2)
-
Mike Trest
-
Paul Ferguson