Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi () tenornetworks com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:11:57 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: smd () clock org [mailto:smd () clock org]

|Prabhu Kavi writes:
| Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add
| capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work.
| For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the
| bright engineers.

Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think
are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to
spend money on more capacity.


Sounds like we know different sets of bright engineers.  My biases
are that I worked for a Layer 2 switch vendor at the time, and
our IP customers were primarily large ISPs.

What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like
is no longer valid.  Neither is what "they" believed about traffic 
management.

ATM is a tool. Some carriers used this tool in 95-97 for line-rate
OC-12 forwarding and TE.  Line-rate forwarding at OC-48+ rates
is no longer an issue, and TE is available with MPLS, so ATM is 
not a very useful for IP traffic these days.  However, TE is 
still a necessary tool for some carriers because "they" know it 
makes better financial sense for them than adding bandwidth.  Your 
mileage may vary.

Prabhu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prabhu Kavi                     Phone:  1-978-264-4900 x125 
Director, Adv. Prod. Planning   Fax:    1-978-264-0671
Tenor Networks                  Email:  prabhu_kavi () tenornetworks com
100 Nagog Park                  WWW:    www.tenornetworks.com
Acton, MA 01720


  By Date           By Thread  

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