Subject: RE: [Mtp] the more things change, the more they stay the same

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:34:18 -0400

-> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:[email-masked]]
-> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 02:17:38PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
-> > 
-> > It was never clear to me why a host to router signaling 
-> mechanism had 
-> > to be different from the router to router signaling mechanism.
-> 
-> Here's one reason: because if we had this conversation in 1993 we
-> would have made the host to router signalling mechanism DVMRP, or
-> maybe we would have been looking toward the future and made it MOSPF.
-> 
-> The generalization of that is the goal is to be able to evolve
-> the routing protocol independently of the host<>router interface.
-> Since there are orders of magnitudes more hosts to change than
-> routers when a protocol changes, this theoretically makes the
-> infrastructure more able to change piecemeal.

  Another good reason is based on end-to-end principle of the Internet. 
  Core of the Internet is best effort (was intended to be, at least). 
  If we would like to support quality of service, we are supposed
  to signal more parameters in the host<>router than router<>router
  to do admission control before entering the network. So, the 
  requirements are different (light weight, not so granular signalling 
  in the core etc) from user<>router interface to router<>router 
  interface.
  
  I am not sure how much (or, how) multicasting fits into such
  end-to-end signaling principle. If I have an HDTV and paid for
  premium VoD service, will I be getting better picture, sound
  quality than my neighbor who is subscribed to a basic service ?

Venkata.

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:30:39 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, 
>   quality than my neighbor who is subscribed to a basic service ?

Venkata,

You are making assertions that are not necessarily true regarding QoS
particularly regarding the role if any of admission control and
inferring that they are somehow tied to the end-to-end principle which
is even less true.  [Sounds like the ramblings of an ATM head. :) ]

Since this whole thing is off topic wrt why native multicast
deployment is very limited, lets just leave it at that.

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:30:39 -0400

Venkata,

Curtis