RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision. Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." Many of you here may have already seen this. It was written back in 1997 by David Isenberg, then a reasearcher at AT&T Labs (Isenberg is now an independent consultant). His paper profoundly changed my views on QoS and made me realize that networks perform best when we limit how smart they get and ensure that networks focus on transport only. I urge everyone to read it. Paper: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Isenberg's site: http://www.isen.com/ _________________________________________________________ Steve Riley Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado email: mailto:steriley@microsoft.com call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:4406249@skytel.com Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw. -----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; pete@kruckenberg.com Subject: Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS? Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it. Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive. --vadim
It's amazing that people continue to spout this "bandwidth is free" notion over and over again. Based upon economics, could someone please explain to me how service providers can run a business by giving away bandwidth? I work at a small networking startup, with a moderate speed connection to the Internet. If bandwidth was essentially free, our company would have an OC48c connection to the service provider. Our company would perform all of its backups over the network to an offsite data center. I would be downloading movies from a new "electronic online video rental" company so I could watch it at home (until my home received an OC48c and I streamed it directly). I would install cameras at home that I can login into from work and watch constantly as a security measure. Using these simple examples, I estimate that I could easily consume several Mbps on average. So could everyone else. Is bandwidth still so plentiful that it could be given away and QoS is not needed? Let's compare bandwidth to another product that is getting cheaper: PCs. PCs continually offer much better performance at the same price, but are not free. The "free PCs" model is simply a way of offsetting the cost to another party that sees value in getting captive long-term clients. The PC maker still gets paid. Likewise, bandwidth will continue to cheaper, but will not be free. As with PCs, the cost of bandwidth may be offset by a third party, but that is not "free bandwidth". The service provider still gets paid. How much depends upon factors like the QoS, the bandwidth, and the service availability. Well paid (read profitable) service providers are good for all of us. This includes the end customers, who need a service provider that can investment in good facilities, equipment, and most of all, talented people to run the network. Prabhu "Steve Riley (MCS)" wrote:
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision.
Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." Many of you here may have already seen this. It was written back in 1997 by David Isenberg, then a reasearcher at AT&T Labs (Isenberg is now an independent consultant). His paper profoundly changed my views on QoS and made me realize that networks perform best when we limit how smart they get and ensure that networks focus on transport only. I urge everyone to read it.
Paper: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Isenberg's site: http://www.isen.com/
_________________________________________________________ Steve Riley Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado email: mailto:steriley@microsoft.com call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:4406249@skytel.com Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw.
-----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; pete@kruckenberg.com Subject: Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it.
Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive.
--vadim
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 978-264-4900 x125 Tenor Networks FAX: 978-264-0671 50 Nagog Park Email: prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720 WWW: www.tenornetworks.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
One big problem with QoS is that most application programmer have no clue as to how to specify QoS related parameters. A few years ago, when I put on my application programmer's hat [pretending I had an MPEG-1 stream to pump out] and looked at the ATM UNI 3.0 specification, I found that (a) I could not really understand the meaning of roughly 1/4 of the parameters and (b) for many of the parameters I understood, I was not at all sure what were the appropriate values to use. In general, most of the multi-media stuff uses some sort of compression algorithm. Unless one have a good understanding of the nitty gritty of the algorithm, one would be somewhat hard pressed to set values. For pre-generated pre-compressed material, one can at least run the material once and monitor its network characteristic. However, translating those characteristic to jitter control parameters is still non-trivial. With real time compression, the challenge is much trickier. So, if the application programmers have a hard time specifying QoS ...... Non application based QoS may be more practical. Hence if I pay for a 3Mbps service from my ISP, I want to ensure that I can get 3Mbps from my end of the pipe to any edge of the ISPs backbone. I will be a bit annoyed if the 3Mbps is only between my end of the pipe to a totally over subscribed and under provisioned POP! If my ISP have a real meaningful SLA with me, I suspect they will being doing real traffic engineering in their access and backbone routers to support the contracted QoS. That could be relatively straight forward as long as the QoS parameters are not too funky (definitely no mention of jitter). Another related type of QoS that is more practical and likely to be done is relative QoS in the form of if I have a 3Mbps pipe to the ISP, the CEO is going to get preferential service to the mail room clerk etc. Such QoS does not seem to be too complex to do at the CPE edge router, again, as long as one does not try to get too fancy and as long as it is relative. Regards, John Leong -- --------------------------------------------------------- Bell Labs Research johnleong@research.bell-labs.com 4995 Patrick Henry Dr. Tel: 408-567-4459 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Fax: 408-567-4448
At 14:04 17/05/99 -0700, Steve Riley (MCS) wrote: You are merely showing your geocentricism by saying that bandwidth is essentially free. That may be true in the USA but not in other countries and especially not trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic. T3 from NY-Chicago goes for around $20K/month. T3 from London to NY goes for around $100K/month. T3 from Tel-Aviv to NY goes for around $300K/month. T3 Tokyo-LA goes for $400K/month (all prices for fiber on a one year contract). I would agree that at $20K/month you could build possible business models that turn the cost of the b/w to be part of the costs you eat and in turn provide b/w free of charge to your users. But at $300-$400K/month it ain't gonna work ($20K/month gets one an almost E1 from Europe to the USA - whereas in the USA it gets you a T3). Go to www.band-x.com to see what current circuits cost. Once int'l bandwidth costs drop to the rates of USA national rates, then I would be inclined to agree with you and Vadim that QoS is not needed. Clearly today, IP QoS is not needed at the campus level. -Hank
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision.
Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." Many of you here may have already seen this. It was written back in 1997 by David Isenberg, then a reasearcher at AT&T Labs (Isenberg is now an independent consultant). His paper profoundly changed my views on QoS and made me realize that networks perform best when we limit how smart they get and ensure that networks focus on transport only. I urge everyone to read it.
Paper: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Isenberg's site: http://www.isen.com/
_________________________________________________________ Steve Riley Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado email: mailto:steriley@microsoft.com call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:4406249@skytel.com Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw.
-----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; pete@kruckenberg.com Subject: Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it.
Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive.
--vadim
You are merely showing your geocentricism by saying that bandwidth is essentially free. That may be true in the USA but not in other countries It depends. It's not free yet for us (in Russia).
But we are talking about two tendencies. One are decreasing of bandwidths charges. Other is the quality of protocols (such as RSVP and multicast's applications) - now this is not usable issues yet. Guess what happen first - this issues will be realised by the proper way, or charges decrease to the values when RSVP and coimplex QoS mechanisms have not any importance?
Once int'l bandwidth costs drop to the rates of USA national rates, then I would be inclined to agree with you and Vadim that QoS is not needed. Clearly today, IP QoS is not needed at the campus level.
-Hank
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: If you have an OC-48, someone will find a way to Smurf it and then you will need QoS at the ICMP level (CAR?). I believe that no matter how unlimited your b/w will be you will always need some modicum of QoS. -Hank
You are merely showing your geocentricism by saying that bandwidth is essentially free.That may be true in the USA but not in other countries It depends. It's not free yet for us (in Russia).
But we are talking about two tendencies. One are decreasing of bandwidths charges. Other is the quality of protocols (such as RSVP and multicast's applications) - now this is not usable issues yet.
Guess what happen first - this issues will be realised by the proper way, or charges decrease to the values when RSVP and coimplex QoS mechanisms have not any importance?
Once int'l bandwidth costs drop to the rates of USA national rates, then I would be inclined to agree with you and Vadim that QoS is not needed. Clearly today, IP QoS is not needed at the campus level.
-Hank
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
If you have an OC-48, someone will find a way to Smurf it and then you will need QoS at the ICMP level (CAR?). I believe that no matter how unlimited your b/w will be you will always need some modicum of QoS. It's just what I am saying - some technologies (as CAR) are used widely, some with the troubles (traffic-shaping, for example), some are dead (RSVP).
Through - SMURF by OS-48? Let's the enemy try - OS-48 will not notice it at all. You can't generate such traffic by the simple way. Anyway, no one answer to the initial question. I guess no one here use complex QoS features, except primitive (CAR, RED, WFQ) ones. Alex.
I must agree and disagree. RSVP is dead protocol - it's enougph to imagine how different ISP can negotoate about RSVP service, and (in addition) read RSVP protocol itself... On the other hand, why don't provide QoS in the non-overbooked network. It's not difficult to install PRECEDENCE queue-control, just as negotiate about some classes of service, to prevent short network bursts from disturbing multimedia streams. I'd like to ask one more question. Multicast, If we project multimedia services from the scratsch, you have a few different choices. For example, you have RealVideo server. I ask you abgour RV stream. Ok, you send packets with DST=MY_ADDRESS. Then someone else send second request. Why (WHY) can't RV server add second DST address into the packet? Why can't you use the same, unicast, address space for multicast services. I mean - first way was (was) to use existing address space for multicast multimedia, and add some mechanism (such as replicators) to hide the mechanisms from the end user. No one bother if some RV-CACHE server catch his request and use his own replicator to organise multidemia stream. Second way was choosen - to use another address space for the multimedia multicasting. Result - you see - Internet have not (HAVE NOT) multimedia multicast at all. No, some ISP have internal multicast networks, but not more. If I ask CNN abour RV live stream, and you ask the same, be sure - the server send just 2 different packets - one for you and one for me... And this is very serious obstacle against multimedia services in the Internet. Not QoS (through QoS prevent using existing public networks from the commercial telephony), but tjis absence of mukticasting in the Internet. On Mon, 17 May 1999, Steve Riley (MCS) wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:04:37 -0700 From: Steve Riley (MCS) <steriley@microsoft.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision.
Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." Many of you here may have already seen this. It was written back in 1997 by David Isenberg, then a reasearcher at AT&T Labs (Isenberg is now an independent consultant). His paper profoundly changed my views on QoS and made me realize that networks perform best when we limit how smart they get and ensure that networks focus on transport only. I urge everyone to read it.
Paper: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Isenberg's site: http://www.isen.com/
_________________________________________________________ Steve Riley Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado email: mailto:steriley@microsoft.com call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:4406249@skytel.com Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw.
-----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; pete@kruckenberg.com Subject: Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it.
Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive.
--vadim
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
In addition. Months ago I'v asked about RSVP in Nanog. I'v get 1 (one) answer - just from the Russia - _we use it over one our link_. -:) On Mon, 17 May 1999, Steve Riley (MCS) wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:04:37 -0700 From: Steve Riley (MCS) <steriley@microsoft.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision.
Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." Many of you here may have already seen this. It was written back in 1997 by David Isenberg, then a reasearcher at AT&T Labs (Isenberg is now an independent consultant). His paper profoundly changed my views on QoS and made me realize that networks perform best when we limit how smart they get and ensure that networks focus on transport only. I urge everyone to read it.
Paper: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Isenberg's site: http://www.isen.com/
_________________________________________________________ Steve Riley Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado email: mailto:steriley@microsoft.com call: +1 303 521-4129 (cellular) page: +1 888 440-6249 or mailto:4406249@skytel.com Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw.
-----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; pete@kruckenberg.com Subject: Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it.
Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive.
--vadim
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
"Steve Riley (MCS)" wrote:
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS. And since in the end nearly all decisions are based on economics, it should be apparent which is the more logical decision.
And of course, since you seem to have discovered the deal of the century, exactly who are you getting all of this free bandwidth from? Maybe you're living in the same universe as Larry Ellison. The *idea* of QoS works for lower-bandwidth connections in remote locations, or for economically challenged installations. The fact that the *implementations* of QoS don't solve this problem is merely a reflection of marketing outweighing research and development. The fact is, we may never get good IP QoS, but to reason that the idea is foolish because bandwidth is free is clearly not rational. -- Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place. - Douglas Adams
Yo Steve! On Mon, 17 May 1999, Steve Riley (MCS) wrote:
Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS hype. Bandwidth is essentially free, and will always be cheaper than QoS.
I guess you forgot that you work for one of the richest organizations on the planet? For the rest of us bandwidth is most assuredly NOT essentially free. Care to see my US$4k/mo. bill for 128k service in Singapore? RGDS GARY
participants (8)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Gary E. Miller -
Hank Nussbacher -
Hank Nussbacher -
John Leong -
Nick Bastin -
Prabhu Kavi -
Steve Riley (MCS)