Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
From: Pete Kruckenberg <pete () kruckenberg com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 09:19:05 -0600 (MDT)

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:

The problem is, while most vendors support tagging and
priority queuing, non of the current vendors can support
true end to end QoS.  Instead, we have taken to calling
their options CoS.

The elusive "end-to-end QoS" seems to be a network
management issue, motivated primarily by the number of knobs
(and some featuritis) and lack of QoS best-practice (because
there's just not a lot of QoS practice, period).

Simple end-to-end technologies (TOS, DiffServ) are enough to
handle congestion-management QoS strategies (and some
differentiated services), are interoperable across most
vendors, and are supported in most edge- and core-class

Beyond simple QoS schemes, the complexity mandates an
end-to-end management tool. I suspect the cost/benefit curve
gets pretty flat above a simple QoS strategy, and anything
more complex has diminishing marginal value.

Any studies been done on cost/benefit of QoS, it'd be
interesting to see where the technical/business case is
compelling and where it makes no sense.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]