""Reimer, Fred"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
I thought I said that. [ looks at my earlier statement] why yes, I did say that :-> >Would you want to stick an enterprise server on wireless? Heck no. Oh i don't know. The answer is "it depends" :-> but suppose I stick the server on my 3550-24PWR and run 23 access points off that switch, instead of putting in a 4507 with a port ( and wiring ) for each user? >Would you want to stick an Oracle database on wireless? I'd say not. do I have a thin client? am I downloading large reports? uploading large volumes of data? >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. my point exactly - > > 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. neither would I. The kids need shoes and I have house payments to make ;-> > > 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=72677&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
