Re: [Dart] [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-00

[[e-mail]]

> On 26/06/2014 01:23, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> ...
>>> Sure, however, my point was that simply injecting traffic marked with
>>> a DSCP for a PHB that normally requires prior admission control is
>>> somewhat problematic: either guarantees for already admitted flows
>>> are violated or such traffic has to be dropped.
>>
>> I see a potential problem here, if this becomes a default: If widely
>> deployed using EF, the traffic will likely result in this DSCP being
>> ignored/dropped (not given you EF properties0)or in breaking EF
>> properties for other flows (which needs to be policed).
>
> If you look at RFC3246 (the EF specification) you will find
> these words:
>
>  the rate at which EF
>  traffic is served at a given output interface should be at least the
>  configured rate R, over a suitably defined interval, independent of
>  the offered load of non-EF traffic to that interface.
>
> In other words, if you do not apply admission control to
> EF traffic, excess traffic *will* be discarded, because EF
> has a strict maximum rate.
>
>     Brian
>
Right - so EF is a useful service for many things  - but my comment
related to whether widely-deployed web apps should be recommending a
default EF DSCP for their critical traffic?

Gorry