<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Ok so the buffers are now full and a voice packet arrives. Do you want the router / switch to drop that voice packet or choose another packet to take one for the team? That is what QoS is for, even with small buffers you still need QoS to pick the loser.</div><div><br></div>Craig.<div><br><div><div>On 07/02/2013, at 10:11 AM, Nicholas Meredith <<a href="mailto:nicholas@udhaonline.net">nicholas@udhaonline.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">I don't follow, congestion won't cause latency if buffers are controlled correctly. How is QoS better in this case?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 07/02/2013 9:27 AM, "Paul Brooks" <<a href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 7/02/2013 8:10 AM, Nicholas Meredith wrote:<br>
><br>
> If bufferbloat gets resolved it will render QoS utterly redundant.<br>
><br>
perhaps...until a link went down and the streams re-routed to another path causing<br>
congestion, or more traffic thrown on the original path also causing congestion.<br>
Even if bufferbloat might 'get resolved', which it won't.<br>
<br>
P.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>