12 Dec
2017
12 Dec
'17
2:04 a.m.
From: George Michaelson
I don't think this list is the right place to
conduct that particular
debate.
Not disagreeing; my message was a very short gloss on a very complicated
situation, and I wasn't trying to push any particular position, just pointing
out that work (whether the right direction, or not, I didn't opine) had been
done.
Its true RSVP didn't get traction, but the
economics which underpin it
are pretty bad, for the current Internet model of settlement
Yes, but would _any_ resource reservation system, even one that _was_
'perfect', have caught on? Because:
it would not surprise me if there is ... more dropped
packets than
strictly speaking the glass expects.
This is related to something I didn't mention; if there is a lot more
bandwidth (in the loose sense, not the exact original meaning) than demand,
then resource reservation mechanisms buy you nothing, and are a lot of
complexity.
While there were bandwidth shortages in the 90s, later on they pretty much
went away. So I think the perception (truth?) that there was a lot of headroom
(and thus no need for resource reservation, to do applications like voice)
played a really big role in the lack of interest (or so people argued at the
time, in saying IntServ wasn't needed).
Noel
12 Dec
12 Dec
2:17 a.m.
New subject: V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]
It lives on, in the QoS tagging gamers and VOIP people do on their
home routers, in a faint hope that apart from outbound queues, inbound
queues from their local provider do some kind of (re)prioritization
based on it. Since thats the person who they pay money to, it kind-of
makes sense.
I didn't mean to disrespect the people who did the models or the
protocol or standards work btw. Like you, I think it was a solution in
search of a problem, in a point in time now past. What we have now, is
a horrid war on capital investment. Nobody wants to turn up the unlit
glass, because it would expose the pricing models which depend on
artificially constructed scarcity.
It interests me that a lot of stuff which doesn't work 'in the wide'
does work in specific contexts. So I would not be surprised if RSVP
and like things survive inside large corporate networks. In like
sense, aircraft databusses are often just normal switches with
isochronous TDM slot markers, to give them guaranteed/bounded delivery
behaviours. I think Christian Huitema did some stuff . on that in
Ethernet while he was in INRIA (or somebody in the same unit)
-G
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Noel Chiappa <jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
From: George
Michaelson
I don't think this list is the right place
to conduct that particular
debate.
Not disagreeing; my message was a very short gloss on a very complicated
situation, and I wasn't trying to push any particular position, just pointing
out that work (whether the right direction, or not, I didn't opine) had been
done.
Its true RSVP didn't get traction, but the
economics which underpin it
are pretty bad, for the current Internet model of settlement
Yes, but would _any_ resource reservation system, even one that _was_
'perfect', have caught on? Because:
it would not surprise me if there is ... more
dropped packets than
strictly speaking the glass expects.
This is related to something I didn't mention; if there is a lot more
bandwidth (in the loose sense, not the exact original meaning) than demand,
then resource reservation mechanisms buy you nothing, and are a lot of
complexity.
While there were bandwidth shortages in the 90s, later on they pretty much
went away. So I think the perception (truth?) that there was a lot of headroom
(and thus no need for resource reservation, to do applications like voice)
played a really big role in the lack of interest (or so people argued at the
time, in saying IntServ wasn't needed).
Noel
2329
days inactive
2329
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
George Michaelson -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu