[87424] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: Th
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fergie)
Fri Dec 16 10:51:13 2005
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:49:39 GMT
To: sean@donelan.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I certainly don't endorse placing _all_ of the intelligence
in the application, but look at it this way -- if you expect
to have a 'stupid' CPE handset rely on 'intelligence' in the
network for voice quality, you're probably going to be disappointed.
And no amount of leveraging smoke-and-mirror QoS frobs to generate
additional revenue will help you out.
:-)
$.02,
- ferg
-- Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote:
> Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
> analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick
> all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win=
> proposal.
Trying to stick it all in the application is not exactly a win-win
proposal either. The problem with religious dogma is it leads to
a lot of burning people at the stake, for more stupid analogies.
Finding the right blend of what applications can do well, what the netwo=
rk
can do well, and how they interact is the challange.
For example, smart applications don't handle DDOS attacks very well, and=
regardless of how much network capacity you provision, there is always a=
DDOS that is bigger.
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
