Networking's greatest debates in LANS + WANS

Including IPv4 vs. IPv6, routing vs. switching, Packet switching vs. circuit switching, Ethernet vs. Token Ring, and Cisco vs. the rest,

Packet switching vs. circuit switching

Circuits as WAN connections battled successfully against packets for years because they guaranteed bandwidth, no matter what.

If you bought a T-1 circuit, the service provider nailed up 1.5Mbps from point A to point B, and that was your bandwidth come hell or high water.

Packets -- first frame relay then IP -- didn't do that. They shared the network capacity, and service providers typically oversold access lines, knowing that if all customers tried to use all the bandwidth they bought at the same time the network would be swamped. Everybody's traffic would suffer delays.

But frame relay service was relatively inexpensive compared with T-1s and it came in connections smaller than 1.5Mbps, usually in increments of 56Kbps. That meant sizing circuits to just handle demand, making business WANs more cost effective.

Plus frame relay services supported bursting -- the instant delivery of more bandwidth than customers contracted for to handle moments of spikes in traffic. Because the networks were oversubscribed, sometimes the bursts were available, sometimes not. But over time, they were available enough of the time to make the service attractive.

Frame relay also offered virtual circuits -- the logical carving up of access lines into lower bandwidth logical links tied to different sites. If a site needed connectivity to six others, it needed a single physical line subdivided into six virtual circuits. In the world of circuits, nothing was virtual. If one site in a corporate network needed to connect to six others, it needed six physical access lines.

As frame relay and later IP services matured, QoS was built into their standards so bandwidth could be guaranteed, just as it was in a circuit. That advance put packets over the top.
Tim Greene

QoS vs. more bandwidth

When a drain chronically runs slow even though it isn't plugged, it's time to get a bigger pipe.

That is pretty much the conventional wisdom about network connectivity -- if links slow down, get bigger links.

That has proved to be a useful rule if you judge by the progress of Ethernet, for example. It started out slow at 10Mbps, then grew faster at 100Mbps, then 1Gbps and now 10Gbps with higher speeds coming into sight. As network traffic increased, networks slowed because of congestion, so businesses built faster networks.

The limiting factor has always been cost. If important enough traffic slows down enough, businesses invest in bigger bandwidth. Inevitably, as the latest, fastest technology matures, the price-per-port drops so it becomes affordable even to those who don't need it.

QoS prioritizes traffic by type so the really important stuff gets the bandwidth it needs to cross the network unimpeded by the unimportant stuff. This can be done by queuing, dedicating bandwidth and rate-limiting low priority traffic.

Even if bandwidth is plentiful and congestion is unlikely, businesses may implement QoS anyway to make doubly sure that real-time traffic such as VoIP and IP video don't get bogged down. But the hassle of implementing QoS on routers for no noticeable gain has many businesses ignoring it.

The story is different over the WAN where more bandwidth means bigger bills month after month. There's no way to wait for a faster technology, buy it for lump sum and reap its benefits as in the LAN.

QoS to mete out bandwidth to the applications that require it becomes necessary if money is factored in. So this debate has a split decision: more bandwidth in the LAN and QoS in the WAN.
Tim Greene

Join the PC World newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Network World staff

Network World
Show Comments


Microsoft L5V-00027 Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard Desktop

Learn more >

Lexar® JumpDrive® S57 USB 3.0 flash drive

Learn more >


Lexar® JumpDrive® S45 USB 3.0 flash drive 

Learn more >


Lexar® JumpDrive® C20c USB Type-C flash drive 

Learn more >

Lexar® Professional 1800x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards 

Learn more >

Audio-Technica ATH-ANC70 Noise Cancelling Headphones

Learn more >

HD Pan/Tilt Wi-Fi Camera with Night Vision NC450

Learn more >


Back To Business Guide

Click for more ›

Most Popular Reviews

Latest News Articles


GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy


First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni


For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell


The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi


The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott


My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?