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.
At 04:38 PM 9/17/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:55:18 -0500 Roy
> Think about this simple fact. The vast majority of small to
> businesses that have multiple sites on an enterprise network, use
> "Private Line" or "Virtual Private Line" links
to make up their enterprise
> networks. Most of them however only have one Internet type
> people simple think thing through and realize how their own
> networks are deployed, they would realize what the real priority for
> supporting business deployment should be. In this environment
> 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
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
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,