RE: Conclusion of Pre-Work Item Review on Bandwidth Document

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Bernard,

Please don't forget the other use cases for the bandwidth attributes as
well.  As you correctly pointed out on the bandwidth teleconference call
recently these attributes are needed for features such as bandwidth on
demand. We deploy these capabilities today in the field and we would
like to see this simple bandwidth model standerdized.

The sense of frustration amongst us is that we keep getting instruction
from the WG to keep it simple and then to make it more complex. This has
been going on for the last year.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:03 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Conclusion of Pre-Work Item Review on Bandwidth Document
> 
> >[FA] It is not deployed because we just started seeing WMM/802.11e 
> >(with admission control) capable APs coming to the market.
> 
> With all due respect, that is *not* what the industry is telling us.
> Almost two years ago, the WFA standardized bandwidth 
> attributes, but we were unable to locate any vendor who had 
> implemented those attributes, nor any customer who had deployed them.
> 
> The reason why the attributes have not been deployed is *not* 
> merely because of lack of hardware support, though that is 
> certainly part of the issue.  802.11 vendors who already 
> support 802.11 QoS schemes also have not implemented the 
> specification, and do not plan to do so in the future, 
> because the current specification does not provide 
> functionality equivalent to what is already supported on their APs.
> 
> Similarly, switch vendors who have support IEEE 802.1Q also 
> have not implemented the specification -- and have indicated 
> that they also do not plan to implement it in the future.
> 
> The "good news" is that there does appear to be significant 
> interest in the general concept of bandwidth limitation, and 
> were the document to be modified to address the issues 
> developed in the review, it seems likely that vendor interest 
> would increase substantially.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to 
> radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in 
> a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>