Chuck - " well sure. one of the other reasons I got to pondering the original question ( are we overselling the value of bandwidth? ) is the following:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/video_audio_archive/?video check out the long reach ethernet presentation, maybe 3/4 down the page. LRE can provide up to 5 megabits full duplex over cat 3 phone wire - data and voice. after viewing the presentation, you tell me - is this not saying that 5 megabits is more than adequate for voice, video, etc? as for wireless - I fully understand that the requirements of the application drive the need for bandwidth. I'm just asking - if people are more productive, despite the obvious lack of bandwidth, and despite the step back to a contention medium, is there something to be said about the perceived need for 100 megabits to the desktop?" Me - I think you have to take into account the application requirements. Would you want to stick an enterprise server on wireless? Heck no. Would you want to stick an Oracle database on wireless? I'd say not. Take a look at what wireless is actually being used for, and I think you will find that, in most cases, the shared media is not a huge issue. It's not like we are transferring hundreds of megabytes of data over wireless on a regular basis, if at all. Is 100MBps really needed to the desktop, let alone 1Gb? I'd say 99.44% of the time the answer is no. 10Mbps switched to the desktop should be more than enough for most users. There will always be users and applications that require greater bandwidth, but as I'm sure most everyone knows the Gigabit downlinks to the core in most corporations are not being loaded to a significant degree. Yes, there will be exceptions, but the general rule I've seen is that the "average" Gb utilization is well below 10% on a downlink. Still, I would not even think of proposing or installing a network today that did not have 100Mbps capabilities at the edge, and Gb connections to the core. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bandwidth, QoS, and Contention networks [7:72645] ""Zsombor Papp"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I think comparing shared wireless to dedicated wired connections is a bit of > an apple vs orange contest. You can get shared wireless where you can't get > anything else (e.g. walking from one meeting room to the other, or attending > a meeting with 10 other people in a room where there are only 4 wired > ports), so obviously it is better than all the other choices. If you can > choose between a 100Mbps switch port and a 11Mbps shared wireless link > without sacrificing anything (e.g. in case of servers or desktop machines), > then the 100Mbps switch port is obviously better. well sure. one of the other reasons I got to pondering the original question ( are we overselling the value of bandwidth? ) is the following: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/video_audio_archive/?video check out the long reach ethernet presentation, maybe 3/4 down the page. LRE can provide up to 5 megabits full duplex over cat 3 phone wire - data and voice. after viewing the presentation, you tell me - is this not saying that 5 megabits is more than adequate for voice, video, etc? as for wireless - I fully understand that the requirements of the application drive the need for bandwidth. I'm just asking - if people are more productive, despite the obvious lack of bandwidth, and despite the step back to a contention medium, is there something to be said about the perceived need for 100 megabits to the desktop? > > Thanks, > > Zsombor > > "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorte wrote: > > > > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > What's the medium cost between the two cities? Can you use > > demand > > > circuits as a backup? Can you live with one more PVC and > > trust the > > > physical connection? Is QoS-unpredictable cable or DSL > > available? > > > > > > > Funny you should ask this, Howard. I've been struggling for > > several weeks > > how to pose the question. Have we, the engineering / technical > > sales > > community oversold the idea of dedicated bandwidth and QoS? > > > > Take, for example, wireless. > > > > Wireless is essentially a step backwards. For years we have > > been convincing > > customers to get rid of their hubs and move into a switched > > domain, with > > dedicated bandwidth for every user. This is often done in the > > name of > > productivity. Fewer interruptions of data streams, meaning work > > completed > > faster.Now all the wireless vendors ( Cisco included ) are > > producing studies > > showing how wireless is increasing productivity to the tune of > > an hour a > > day. On a shared contention medium. Cisco will shortly release > > their > > wireless telephone as part of their AVVID suite of products, > > competing with > > the SpectraLink product that has been available for a couple of > > years. > > > > All this gives one reason to re-evaluate what we have been told > > for the last > > couple of years. a contention medium provides the means for > > greater > > productivity? > > > > You mention QoS in your response above. QoS is something being > > pushed as > > necessary for voice, video, and other delay sensitive traffic. > > Cisco > > wireless AP's offer one way quasi QoS. Wireless, however, > > remains a > > contention medium, and will remain so until the FCC changes the > > rules. I'm > > not sure they will be able to release sufficient radio spectrum > > to permit > > all the bandwidth and services that wired can. But wireless is > > so damn > > convenient! > > > > I'm not suggesting that dedicated bandwidth to the desktop is a > > bad thing or > > that there is not need for QoS. However, I'm wondering how all > > of us might > > reconcile two seemingly opposed points of view regarding > > bandwidth and QoS - > > recognizing that wireless, whatever it's limitations, is here > > to stay, and > > will become and remain essential to any and all networks, > > enterprise or > > small business, going forward. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72672&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
