Re: Internet2 VoIP SIG Call 9/28 "QoS Not Needed"

[Garret Yoshimi <>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks again for doing the session on the VoIP call.  Wanted to add my 
two cents to Christian's question at the end of the call, and Mike's 
comment ... institutional backbones (inside the institution) might very 
well be QoS enabled as you discussed at the end of the call, however, 
one of the challenges we face is that there's little chance of 
realistically supporting real end-to-end QoS when entering individual 
departmental or workgroup domains that are inside the institution, but 
that are managed by others.  In our case, we do manage a system-wide 
interactive video application that operates over a QoS enabled backbone, 
and, over elements that we control all the way to the edge switch; at 
the edges of our network, we provision an overlay network in order to 
maintain end-to-end control.

Best.
garret

Ben Teitelbaum wrote:
> "Enyeart, Michael J" 
> <>
>  writes:
>
>   
> > Ben,
> >
> >  
> >
> > FYI, the Educause 
> > Net@Edu
> >  Integrated Communications Strategies group
> > recently conducted a survey of fifty (leading) universities, deemed most
> > likely to be deploying convergence solutions.  Forty two universities
> > responded to the survey.  
> >
> >  
> >
> > Of 42 responding universities, 69% said they planned to implement QoS
> > techniques as part of a converged services rollout.
> >     
>
> Mike,
>
> Interesting.  I presume that most or all of those 69% are referring to
> some sort of separation of traffic on the campus LAN or rationing of
> known bottleneck links, which is a perfectly sensible approach in many
> cases.
>
> This is a meaning of "QoS" that I specifically defined as out-of-scope
> for the talk I gave yesterday, which took "QoS" to mean end-to-end,
> interdomain, IP service assurances.
>
> Please *do* share the report when it is finished.  Thanks!
>
> -- ben
>
>