Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
danny at qwest.net
Tue Jun 15 18:27:34 UTC 1999
> Do i miss something
> Please. Caching is _at least_ as efficient as multicasting (multicasting
> _is_ caching, with zero retention time) - w/o associated security and
> scalability problems.
Great, please do clue me in. I wasn't aware that you'd corrected all the
issues with caching, and somehow defied physics wrt the process of "duplicate
bits" on a wire not actually utilizing b/w.
> Presenting L2/L3 multicasting as the best or the only
> or even a meaningful way to reduce transmission duplication is quite wrong.
I don't recall anyone doing that. They're both good ideas, they both need
> A primary concern is the absense (and most likely, impossibility) of any L2/L3
> multicast routing scheme capable of supporting any significant number of
> mcast trees.
Oh, and caching has no problems? I believe they're addressing two _slightly_
> Scalability on the Internet pretty much means that algorithms should run in
> O(log(N)**M) where N is the total number of end-points and M is constant.
> (Note that non-CIDR unicast routing doesn't fit this criterion, but CIDR does).
Perhaps O(log(N)**M) does apply to unicast, but the multicast model should
differ. I'd agree that in an ideal state, sure, looks good, but...
> The benefits of mining cheap cheese on the Moon are quite obvious. If you're
> willing to overlook the small fact that the Moon isn't made from cheese.
I'm with Brett, never been to the moon..
> _No_ technological advances can help the fact that L2/L3 multicasts cannot
> be routed in a scalable fashion. Think what happens when there is 1mil
> multicast trees in the network.
and 10 billion caching servers won't give you even one extra bit to the
More information about the NANOG