MartinT: Priority packets are just that: priority. Guaranteed delivery of a high priority packet implies fulfilling certain QoS specs, and I would assume CSCO can establish such specs and fulfill them, while other offerings have yet to put it into writing. I would not know personally, but I am still looking for the definitive reason CSCO can put it in writing and others are not so inclined....
My opinion is CSCO is betting their sales peoples private parts on THAT particular aspect of QoS. In the Class 5 "big iron" department QoS is GOD. If you can't meet 99.8 percent reliability and functionality (and this over the course of many years if not decades)....well...yer not even gonna see the inside door of the LEC decision makers you're trying to hustle. Period.
Sooooo....CSCO putting their QoS guarantees in writing......where IP priority packet "stuff" is concerned?? Hmmmmm....me thinks you'd better read the fine print. I bet they caveat the hell out of the voice aspect of it. And if I was the sales person I believe I'd be ordering me a set of cast iron undies, just in case. After all, guarantees like that one are all but guaranteed to be broken. HEH! Oh..and for that matter, I like one comment as provided by Dano's Lightreading site. I paraphrase the mis-order packet comment, "mis-ordering is fractal in nature....." Reading that was the best laugh I've had today. My comment? No shyte. *Ahem* Don't get me wrong, the basic telecom paradigm shift to all things packet is underway, not the least of which involves IP/Voice, softswitching, etc. In fact, but the glacial standards of the LEC's and the telecom industry you can say it's coming, and coming on strong. But even so, it's gonna take a few years before network-wide fractal "droppings" become so small as to make QoS concerns a non-issue. IMHO, of course.
John~ |
