Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (765)	12/18/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

HI Frank, I don't doubt that hybrid schemes are being tried; I guess my comment regarding "not solvable" was more in reference to your comment <<"I say this because I've yet to see anyone do this both successfully and consistently, in over thirty some odd years...">>, which I interpreted as meaning you haven't seen a real solution. Here's a hypothetical question (in other words, ignore any practicality arguments for now): suppose we had physically separate global internets for each currently identified traffic class, could it be solved then? I think the answer is "not entirely" because that's just a different partitioning of the same QoS solution. Or is it? It's spatially separated as opposed to temporal separation, but do the net flow statistics improve? You eliminate the interference "between classes" but still have the interference "amongst a given class." The statistics within a given class would now be easier to bound, since they don't have any interference from the non-statistically-related 'other' classes anymore. In any event this creates a new problem, i.e. where does this multiplexing happen? The endpoints make the most sense, but that puts an expense in joe-consumer's lap. Is it really physical separation, or is it logical separation... Is it multi-wavelength (i.e. a (group of) lambda(s) per traffic class) per fiber to the home? ...Fiber to the home? Where'd that come from Dave?....Left field, that's where...we're hypothetical here, remember. That's the only model where this makes even the slightest bit of sense I think. Again we end up at the big stumbling block that seems to reappear with any potential solution (and I use that word 'solution' loosely since I haven't really thought this through in detail): It really needs to be implemented everywhere, instantaneously. Obviously this isn't going to happen, yet it won't function properly unless this is the case. Nobody wants to go first because their resources can't really be used in their entirety until everyone else joins the party. So how to circumvent this "simultaneity" issue: Islands, that's how. Build it in large isolated islands where some internal good can be made of the investment--even if it's not 100 percent since for external connections all bets are off. These islands exist (in terms of the geographic concept, not in terms of this particular implementation), and their numbers are growing, as you mentioned in your reply. But the "traffic class per lambda (group) [wavebands <g>]" thing isn't being experimented with as far as I know. It certainly gives value to DWDM beyond just capacity increases, it would seem. And it can be assembled without disrupting the rest of the world. I'm not implying this eliminates the need for QoS...just that it makes it an 'easier to bound' problem because you're sorting and policing groups of like-things rather that blobs that can contain anything. So this is just a different "hybrid" possibility: the greater BW of fiber and DWDM, and more easily bounded QoS. heck, I dunno...just being hypathetical.