I hear you Chuck. I think microsegmentation (that's what we used to call it, as you know I'm sure) was definitely oversold by the marketing types. Microsegmentation to a point certainly makes sense. I troubleshooted quite a few shared Ethernet networks that were approaching meltdown because of too many users sharing the bandwidth. But for most applications, 100 full duplex to the desktop isn't actually necessary. Links that carry multiple users' data need more bandwidth, but a link that just carries a single user's data for a user doing ordinary typical applications, will use a minimal amount of that 100 Mbps.
I challenge my students to try to use just 10 Mbps. They are shocked at how hard it is. We tend to lose sight of the fact that switches do have some disadvantages too. They are more complex and more likely to have problems than hubs. They make protocol analysis difficult. But we can't go backwards. It's getting harder and harder to even buy a hub! But, as you say 11 Mbps shared RF, i.e. 802.11 is a step backwards, and it works! I'm using it right now! Is it making me more productive? Absolutely not. I'm trying to type on this awful little keyboard, looking at an eensy-weensy screen, doing Group Study when I should be eating lunch and decompressing and chatting (face-to-face) with colleauges. :-) Last year I attended a security conference. I think it was the first time they had wireless available. Much less work got done. All the guys sat hunkered over their notebook computers, working and trying to attack each other. The informal discussions that lead to brilliant ideas and collaboration were much harder to start. It was up to the women to start them. :-) Unforutately, we made up about 5% of the attendees. OK, now it really is lunch time. I hope some colleagues will be in the cafeteria and we can talk in person. Priscilla "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorte wrote: > > ""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=72715&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
