Re: [Diffserv-interest] CIR in AF class

"Feng Y" <feng6@uwindsor.ca> Wed, 12 May 2004 16:29 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23378 for <diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2004 12:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNwER-0002yf-IP for diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 12:05:19 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4CG5JpT011435 for diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 12:05:19 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNvY3-0007cq-Cq; Wed, 12 May 2004 11:21:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNvAk-0005WG-3I for diffserv-interest@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:57:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13321 for <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNvAh-0001xq-Jp for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:57:23 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNv8U-00011w-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:55:07 -0400
Received: from firewall2.uwindsor.ca ([137.207.233.22] helo=internet2.uwindsor.ca) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNv5L-0007QP-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:51:51 -0400
Received: id KAA07763; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:49:04 -0400
Received: by gateway id 42793756; Wed, 12 May 2004 10:49:04 -0400
From: "Feng Y" <feng6@uwindsor.ca>
Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] CIR in AF class
To: Jing Shen <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
Cc: Feng Y <feng6@uwindsor.ca>, diffserv-interest@ietf.org
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0.6
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:49:04 -0400
Message-ID: <web-42793756@uwindsor.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20040512114325.22292.qmail@web15408.mail.cnb.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest>, <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion <diffserv-interest.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:diffserv-interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest>, <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> > Also, CIR treatment at the edge can be very
> > different.  
> 
> What do you means by "different"? implementation
> details or the traffic shaping/policing policy?
> 
> To my understanding the same PHB reflects the same
> view of traffic across a policing point although there
> may exist great differnce in implementation methods. 
>

Do you mean that although the implementations are
different, the results are the same - defferent flows have
same CIR? Or, the flows which have the same CIR maybe
assigned different bandwidth according to the current
network state?

Thanks.

Yang

_______________________________________________
Diffserv-interest mailing list
Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest