Subject: Re: QOS Routing - high level comments (long)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 00:42:50 -0500

From: Tony DeSimone <[email-masked]>

    Every argument I've heard from the firmly no-reservations camp ultimately
    comes down to either ``over-provisioning'' or ``adaptive applications.''  I
    don't think either argument is compelling.

Hmm. Do you believe that with "enough" overprovisioning, and a traffic load
which is reasonably consistent (i.e. modellable, I don't mean constant load)
one can make a statistical guarantee of a specified level of service (of the
kind I outlined in a previous message)? (Assume some non-cheatable priority
marking scheme so that best-effort traffic spikes don't interfere with the
delay of real-time traffic...)

If you don't think overprovisioning can provide a statistical guarantee of
service, I'd be very interested to hear why you don't think it can. If it can,
of course, then either resource allocation *or* overprovisioning would be an
acceptable solution from the perspective of the user, and which is preferrable
would be a matter principally of economics (and to a lesser degree engineering
complexity, etc, etc), no?

	Noel (taking the other side for a moment :-)

---

From: Tony DeSimone <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:15:44 -0400

>>>>> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> writes:

Noel> Hmm. Do you believe that with "enough" overprovisioning, and a
Noel> traffic load which is reasonably consistent (i.e. modellable, I
Noel> don't mean constant load) one can make a statistical guarantee
Noel> of a specified level of service (of the kind I outlined in a
Noel> previous message)?

Yes.  (How's that for short and to the point?)  

Did I say something that made you think otherwise?

Frankly, I'll need to go back and read your previous message to figure
out what point you're making. (too much mail, too little time...)