RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF
Yoram Bernet <yoramb@Exchange.Microsoft.com> Sat, 22 January 2000 20:39 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11123 for <diffserv-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:39:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29326; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:13:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29295 for <diffserv@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:13:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.88.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA10763 for <diffserv@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:14:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 by dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:12:51 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Received: by dfssl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <DFRQ8RQ7>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:12:51 -0800
Message-ID: <078292D50C98D2118D090008C7E9C6A60945FA7B@STAY.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
From: Yoram Bernet <yoramb@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
To: Joakim Bergkvist <Joakim.F.Bergkvist@telia.se>
Cc: RSVP <rsvp@isi.edu>, diffserv <diffserv@ietf.org>, end2end-interest@isi.edu, issll@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:12:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <diffserv.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: diffserv@ietf.org
OK - let me try and rephrase... RSVP gives us a certain level of fucntionality in exchange for a certain degree of complexity. This raises two questions: 1. Is it possible to offer the same degree of fucntionality more efficiently (i.e. with a simpler protocol, less com-plexity)? 2. Is the degree of functionality offered by RSVP really required? Bear with me while I address these one at a time: In response to the first, consider that some pretty smart people spent a few years developing and refining RSVP. If you trust that the people who developed RSVP are reasonably good at what they do, and that they believe in keeping things simple where possible, then - probably the protocol is about as simple as it can be to offer the functionality it offers. Perhaps we could spend another five years and provide the same level of functionality with marginal improvements in efficiency/simplicity, but given that the original developers of RSVP probably were pretty good at what they do, I doubt that we could do much better with a new protocol *if* we want to offer the same level of fucntionality. But - perhaps we don't need quite the leel of fucntionality offered by RSVP (e.g. full receiver heterogeneity, other things). I actually believe that there is some excess functionality built into RSVP that doesn't justify its compelxity. So - we can claim that RSVP tried to do too much, scrap it all and start over with another protocol that will be in development for five years. Alternatively, we can look at RSVP, ask where it can be simplified and how we might use a subset of it that is simpler and that achieves most of the functionality that we need. That's really what's been happenning over the last few years. We have been working to adopt from RSVP, those pieces which provide the functionality we need. I hope that you folks that are proposing work on a new protocol are not doing so because you think that the fucntionality of RSVP can be achieed with a significantly lighterweight protocol. If you do - I think that you are casting in doubt the competence of those who created it. Rahter, I suspect that you are of the opinion that one doesn't need all the functionality of RSVP and that thereofre, some complexity could be eliminated. If so, then there are two options - 1) start all over. 2) adapt existing stuff. I tend to believe in adapting existing stuff where possible. Yoram -----Original Message----- From: Joakim Bergkvist [mailto:Joakim.F.Bergkvist@telia.se] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 11:30 AM To: Yoram Bernet Cc: RSVP; diffserv; end2end-interest@isi.edu; issll@lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yes Yoram we know you're fond of RSVP! but still.. In the face of the known problems with RSVP we are several people who want to discuss alternatives. So far there have not been a forum to discuss the posibilities of alternative signalling. Instead the people behind these has spent their time listing problems with RSVP (this is what you could discuss in the RSVP BOF). Pm sure you can tweak RSVP into doing anything but this is not really the point. We beleive that there are much simpler ways of solving the same problems. If we are right there is a solution which is fundamentally simpler both in implementation and in performance requirements. This would bennefit small vendors with limited resources (not just Microsoft and Cisco). Lower performance requirements would also mean less impact on design issues and a broader fit into the current product range. My belief is that the IETF as well as RSVP would bennefit from efforts being spent on concrete solutions instead of finding problems with RSVP. If Yoram is right problems will be solved and implementations will get good enough to make RSVP happen before anyone can show a strong alternative. If not maby there is a reason for it.. There is only one way to find out and I'm not afraid! / Joakim Bergkvist, Telia Research Yoram Bernet wrote: > > Actually, in response to the comment: > > "The ISSLL WG doesn't really suit to DS", I would point out that the ISSLL > WG has been working for some time on the mapping of RSVP/Integrated services > to DS. So - this statement is somewhat inaccurate. > > Nonetheless, I do think that it is appropriate ot have a forum to continue > to discuss signaled QoS and its application. In fact, in the discussions > preceeding the closing of the RSVP group, it was suggested that an RSVP > implementation group might be formed. > > I would generally oppose the creation of a wroking group to start > standardizing new layer-3 qos signaling protocols. Rather, I would encourage > continuing the work on using RSVP in a scalable manner to unify the various > disparate layer-2 QoS mechanisms in an end-to-end manner (as well as layer-3 > hop by hop mechanisms such as diffserv)... > > Yoram > > -----Original Message----- > From: Istvan Cselenyi [mailto:Istvan.I.Cselenyi@telia.se] > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:53 AM > To: RSVP; diffserv; end2end-interest@isi.edu > Cc: Ping Pan > Subject: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF > > Reading Ping's and earlier threads [1-3] and works [4-11] it seems that > there are many people who want to contribute to the future of signaled > QoS, but there is no IETF charter for aggregating all these good (not > best :-) efforts since > > * the DS WG excludes new signaling by (re)definition > * the MPLS WG deals with QoS routing and TE which are different > * the ISSLL WG doesn't really suit to DS > * the RSVP WG is closing done > > Shall we start with a BOF in Adelaide? > > /Istvan > > ------------------------------ > Links > > [1] http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/msg00057.html > > [2] http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/msg03288.html > > [3] http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/msg04872.html > > [4] http://icawww1.epfl.ch/srp/ > > [5] http://www.it.kth.se/~gk/Tyrrhenian-ws.ps > > [6] P. White, J. Crowcroft, A Case for Dynamic Sender-Initiated > Reservation in the Internet, Journal on High Speed Networks, Special > Issue on QoS Routing and Signaling, Vol 7 No 2, 1998 > > [7] A. Eriksson, C. Gehrmann, "Robust and Secure Light- weight > Resource Reservation for Unicast IP Traffic", International WS on > QoS'98, IWQoS'98, May 18-20, 1998 > > [8] http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gibson-sip-qos-resv-00.txt > > [9] > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sinnreich-interdomain-sip-qos-o > sp-00.txt > > [10] > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-insignia-01.txt > > [11] > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bergkvist-boomerang-spec-00.txt > > -------------------------------------------------- > Istvan Cselenyi > Telia Research AB Phone: +46-8-7138173 > Vitsandsgatan 9 B431 Fax: +46-8-7138199 > S-12386 Farsta Mobile: +46-70-3228801 > Sweden E-mail: Istvan.I.Cselenyi@telia.se > -------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > diffserv mailing list > diffserv@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/ > > _______________________________________________ > diffserv mailing list > diffserv@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/ _______________________________________________ diffserv mailing list diffserv@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/ _______________________________________________ diffserv mailing list diffserv@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yoram Bernet
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Joakim Bergkvist
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Stephen Casner
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yoram Bernet
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Joakim Bergkvist
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Istvan Cselenyi
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Lixia Zhang
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Ping Pan
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Ping Pan
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Michael Welzl
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Ping Pan
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Tim Dorcey
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Bob Braden
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Jon Crowcroft
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Lars Westberg T/NI 2
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Zoltan Richard Turanyi
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Juha Heinanen
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Lars Westberg T/NI 2
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Juha Heinanen
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Istvan Cselenyi
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Istvan Cselenyi
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF JC Ferguson
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Scott W Brim
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yoram Bernet
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yoram Bernet
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF now After diffserv, ...… Andrew T. Campbell
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF now After diffserv, ...… Jon Crowcroft
- NOT ON THE DIFFSERV LIST PLEASE Re: [Diffserv] Qo… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Juha Heinanen
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF => RSVP & Boomerang lis… Istvan Cselenyi
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF lewis
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF now After diffserv, ...… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Ping Pan
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Michael Welzl
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Scott W Brim
- NOT ON THE DIFFSERV LIST PLEASE Re: [Diffserv] Qo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF James_Binder
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Tal Anker
- RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Yoram Bernet
- Re: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF Masataka Ohta