[2248] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST))
Fri Mar 29 12:18:20 1996
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog@dune.silkroad.com>
To: pferguso@cisco.com
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:03:25 -0500 (EST)
Cc: bajaj@bellcore.com, smd@icp.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603291641.LAA14752@noc1.biddeford.com> from "Fletcher Kittredge" at Mar 29, 96 11:41:27 am
Fletcher replies:
>
> I see no "of course." Are there some applications which require this
> level of service in a WAN? Probably. Are there many? Probably not.
> Is end-to-end relability and performance more important for the *vast*
> majority of applications? Yes!
>
I'll concede the fact that the number of 'surf the net' applications
far exceed the number of real-time systems in the Internet.
But, we am working on a WAN project that required real time data delivery
every few seconds across the US to numerous sites. Even though the
numbers are few *today* they do exist and are growing in number and
complexity. In fact, there are numerous applications and system
designs just waiting for the 'network to support real-time services.'
Just because real-time services are in the minority of datagram services,
does not translate to 'the world should not support real-time services'.
If that is the logic that is used to make decisions, then let's
stop funding libraries because the vast majority get their information
from television!
Real-time WAN services with concrete .99999+ availability of QoS is
one of the growth areas of the next decade, BTW, and is a much
differnet service that providing access so 'Joe&Judy surf-the-net'
can pull down yet another file.
There are numerous applications for real-time datagram delivery
systems. ATM may not be the underlying transport, as mentioned;
but there is an emerging market for .99999+ datagram services.
The average IP provider may never see this market, but believe
me, they exists.
High regards,
Tim
