[TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]

[George Michaelson]

I don't think this list is the right place to conduct that particular
debate. Its true RSVP didn't get traction, but the economics which
underpin it are pretty bad, for the current Internet model of
settlement and 'who pays, and when' -There was no point at which RSVP
was going to deploy into the inter-carrier settlement regime we have,
and have had for some time. It didn't actually mean buying 'more' of
anything, it simply meant pushing people who wouldn't buy more, into
smaller drop buckets.

I'd counter (sort of) with a comment that I heard at NANOG San Jose
from a US tier-1. There is more glass in the ground, than lit, by at
least one order of magnitude. If you have congestion on any US
domestic link, its not because you don't actually have clear channel,
its because somebody is making money from artificial scarcity.

I don't know for sure that the same is true trans-atlantic or
trans-pacific, but it would not surprise me if there is a lot of unlit
capacity, and more dropped packets than strictly speaking the glass
expects.

n-way conferencing is about as stressful as it gets for loss, and
delay. I think its a minor miracle I can do 3 or 4 way, heads and
voice at all. If I was paying, I'd expect better. Free QDU's are like
greshams law: bad (cheap) comms drives out good (paid) comms.

-G

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>     > From: Steve Johnson
>
>     > Recently I've been attempting to Skype on a group call with 5 people in
>     > Europe. I would LOVE to have a guaranteed bandwidth for my call.
>
> The Internet engineering community did quite a bit of work on resource
> guarantees. (Google 'IntServ' and 'RSVP' - the latter is the control
> protocol.)
>
> Unfortunately, there was never much interest in it. People started doing
> voice with just plain 'best effort' service, and I guess it worked 'well
> enough' that nobody was interested in IntServ/RSVP.
>
>         Noel