Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's observation.


I only have comments on a few pieces of your referenced response to Roy. I have deleted the portions that I am not commenting on.

See below


At 04:38 PM 9/17/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:55:18 -0500  Roy Bynum wrote:
> Think about this simple fact.  The vast majority of small to medium size
> businesses that have multiple sites on an enterprise network, use several
> "Private Line" or "Virtual Private Line" links to make up their enterprise
> networks.  Most of them however only have one Internet type link.  If
> people simple think thing through and realize how their own enterprise
> networks are deployed, they would realize what the real priority for EFM
> supporting business deployment should be.  In this environment slightly
> higher costs can be justified to obtain better efficiency.

I respectfully disagree on this point.  We don't build our networks this way.  I am not asking you to agree with me.  I am asking you to treat my perspective with the same respect I treat yours.  What I would like to see is an EFM which would allow you to build QoS into your network, and us not to use your QoS mechanisms.  Then we can let the market decide the argument, not a vote of a standards commitee.

I strongly agree with this point of view. I am relatively sure that my opinion with respect to QoS to that of the majority of SPs is non overlapping. Furthermore, I absolutely believe that I am right and they are wrong, therefore my point of view will win over the long haul (just like everybody else).

It may be that there is no way to build QoS without inserting it into EFM.

(1) I don't think that this is true and (2) QoS is out of scope for the current EFM project. We do not have carte blanche for meddling with the MAC and there is currently no mechanism for handling multiple cues in the MAC data stream. Further, it is my belief that (at least for the fiber) that EFM is sufficiently over provisioned (in the physical sense, not the revenue sense) that EFM will not be a portion of the problem. QoS has value only where limited bandwidth causes delay. This is unlikely to be true in the EFM portion of a larger system.

However, before adding complicated QoS mechanisms I would like to see significant proof that it is necessary and at least two working prototypes of the mechanism; prototypes which can be easily reproduced.

For an IP connection, QoS on one part of a TCP/IP link does not add much value.  QoS must be end-to-end to be effective.

Again, not true. You don't need QoS at the ends if the ends have greater bandwidth than the middle.


sincere and most respectful regards,