QOS or more bandwidth

Kavi, Prabhu prabhu_kavi at tenornetworks.com
Tue May 29 19:11:57 UTC 2001

> -----Original Message-----
> From: smd at clock.org [mailto:smd at clock.org]

> |Prabhu Kavi writes:
> | Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add
> | capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work.
> | For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the
> | bright engineers.
> Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think
> are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to
> spend money on more capacity.

Sounds like we know different sets of bright engineers.  My biases
are that I worked for a Layer 2 switch vendor at the time, and
our IP customers were primarily large ISPs.

> What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like
> is no longer valid.  Neither is what "they" believed about traffic 
> management.

ATM is a tool. Some carriers used this tool in 95-97 for line-rate
OC-12 forwarding and TE.  Line-rate forwarding at OC-48+ rates
is no longer an issue, and TE is available with MPLS, so ATM is 
not a very useful for IP traffic these days.  However, TE is 
still a necessary tool for some carriers because "they" know it 
makes better financial sense for them than adding bandwidth.  Your 
mileage may vary.

Prabhu Kavi                     Phone:  1-978-264-4900 x125 
Director, Adv. Prod. Planning   Fax:    1-978-264-0671
Tenor Networks                  Email:  prabhu_kavi at tenornetworks.com
100 Nagog Park                  WWW:    www.tenornetworks.com
Acton, MA 01720

More information about the NANOG mailing list