Re: [RE] Is anything special required??
Arthur,
>> I do not agree that the term "over provisioned" is an abstract quantity.
>> If a 100Mbps network can carry the traffic with bandwidth allocation
>> then a gigabit network will be over-provisioned.
Does this mean that your definition of overprovisioned is 10%?
I'm not trying to say that 10% is good or bad, just trying to
nail down a specific counterproposal for consideration.
Without a specific number, its hard to respond intelligently.
As an extreme example, 1% may make things more deterministic,
but 1% might be an unacceptable limitation in the marketplace.
>> > Do you disagree on those goals, or on the conclusions
>> > we have reached, based on those goals?
Can we safely assume that the disagreement was in goals,
specifically 75% vs 10% of link utilization for RE traffic?
Since one can't affect non-RE stations, such as server-to-PC
data transfers, I suppose the 10% would only apply to RE
traffic restrictions. Is this the intent of your proposal?
Respectfully,
DVJ
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Arthur Marris
>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:17 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Is anything special required??
>>
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> > For some of us, the goals are to allow time-sensitive
>> > traffic to occupy 75% of the bandwidth on 100Mb/s links,
>> > with no other loading or topology constraints. This is
>> > a bit easier to deal with, since the abstract quantities
>> > of "over provisioned" and "would notice" are better
>> > quantified and therefore measurable/provable.
>>
>> I do not agree that the term "over provisioned" is an abstract quantity.
>> If a 100Mbps network can carry the traffic with bandwidth allocation
>> then a gigabit network will be over-provisioned.
>>
>> > While the preceding goals, there do seem to be a few
>> > special subscription and pacing requirements.
>>
>> > Do you disagree on those goals, or on the conclusions
>> > we have reached, based on those goals?
>>
>> I think the goal at this time should be to identify the needs and
>> requirements of various CE applications in terms of throughput, latency,
>> jitter, loss etc and see what enhancements need to be made to Ethernet
>> (if any) to address these. I think Denis said something similar in a
>> previous message.
>>
>> Arthur.
>>