Cell Relay Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: Cell in Frames
The CIF spec explicitly said that realtime QoS parameters were only appropriate on point-to-point (switched) Ethernet connections, and that on shared Ethernet only UBR and limited use of ABR made sense. CIF was always targeted at switched Ethernet. I said that, although not so clearly, in a previous message. Of course you might have congestion in the ends of the link, but that's true of any interface, and is up to queuing to deal with appropriately. OK? ...Scott ronald h. davis <ronaldd@lucent.com> wrote in message 37692091.9E4B56AE@lucent.com">news:37692091.9E4B56AE@lucent.com... > Scott Brim wrote: > > > > Bert, for non-realtime traffic you packed many cells in a frame. Real time > > traffic would get one or a few cells in a frame. This would be based on VC > > QoS parameters. You're wrong about "no QoS at all", by the way, since even > > if you used full-size frames the maximum delay over a switched 10Mb Ethernet > > segment would be about 4 milliseconds. > > > > that makes assumptions about how heavily loaded the ethernet segment > is; and it is a best effort delivery medium. as such, it is fair to > say that there is no qos. now, whether you really *need* to have > qos all the way to the desktop is another topic of discussion... > > -- > __ ______ __ / __/ | lucent technologies, naperville il, usa > _/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/ . ronald.h.davis@lucent.com > author of "atm for public networks" published by mcgraw-hill > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071344764
|
|