[summary] Re: QoS/CoS interest

Wed May 28 18:19:07 UTC 1997

Oops. Forgot one:

Number of respondents that mentioned that ISP's haven't
quite figured out non-QoS services yet: 2

- paul

At 01:56 PM 05/28/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:

>
>[snip]
>
>Number of respondents: 19
>
>Number of respondents who felt that better QoS 'knobs' were
>needed in the routers: 4
>
>Number of respondents who felt that admission control and
>policing functionality was required: 2
>
>Number of respondents who feel that QoS granularity at the
>IP source/destination and/or tcp/udp port level is
>sufficient: 2
>
>Number of respondents that indicated that QoS should have
>the granularity to differentiate with per-flow granularity: 1
>
>Number of respondents who need QoS differentiation for
>enhanced economic factors (charge more money): 4
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS
>isn't interesting due to over-engineering: 2
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that (paraphrased) QoS
>would indeed be interesting if they were congested: 1
>
>Number of respondents that indicated that congestion
>management needs to be an integral part of any QoS
>implementation: 1
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that until QoS
>routing was available, QoS was not interesting: 1
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that inter-domain
>QoS transit was a major stumbling block: 6
>
>Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP
>by name: 3
>
>Number of respondents that explicitly mentioned RSVP
>in a favorable tone: 2
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that QoS implementations,
>whatever they may be, needs to be pervasive, to include hosts: 2
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that billing & accounting
>systems need to be developed for QoS: 4
>
>Number of respondents who indicated that the term 'QoS' is
>too ambiguous: 2
>
>Number of respondents who indicated they expect guaranteed
>delivery in a QoS implementation: 0
>
>[snip]
>