Subject: Bandwidth? BANDWIDTH. We don't need no stinking bandwidth

From: [email-masked] (Dan Kolis)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:00:09 -0500

Of course its true: "no amount of QOS can generate any additional bandwidth" 

(That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:46:07 +1100

> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)

Shouldn't references to MPLS be surrounded by <aol> ... </aol> tags?

cheers,
gja

---

From: Christopher Evans <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:10:20 -0800

yes.

if pos('<AOL>',s)>=i then ignoredata:=1 else 
if pos('</AOL>',s)>=i then ignoredata:=0;

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:57:08 -0800

> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)

Hmm, wonder if "QOS" here might imply different things ...

Put aside the history where it came from, MPLS finally did find a need for
it: as the Internet topology gets more and more richly connected, there is a
need to spread out traffic over all existing connectivities in some
controlled way.

There is the adm-control and BW reservation side of QOS, but in case of
MPLS, it also helps with the above issue.

Note I am not saying MPLS is the right solution for the problem.
To me the right solution to the above mentioned problem should be a
multi-path routing protocol.

My 2 cents (and stop, don¹t mean to join another round of MPLS bashing)

Lixia