Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 30 October 2006 16:38 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GeaA6-0007z9-Kq; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:58 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GeaA4-0007z1-Jz for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:56 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gea9v-0006S8-T7 for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:56 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2006 08:38:48 -0800
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9UGclan022853; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:47 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9UGcjDM026601; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:45 -0500
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.89.16.12]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:38:44 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20060927201415.032e6848@email.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jmpolk@email.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:38:43 -0600
To: John Rosenberg <jrrosenberg@lucent.com>, curtis@occnc.com
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060927173433.0323abd0@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
References: <200609270215.k8R2FI5J006271@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com > <Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:10:49 CDT." <6.2.1.2.0.20060926190508.03463c30@ihmail.ih.lucent.com> <200609270215.k8R2FI5J006271@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2006 16:38:45.0027 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDC33730:01C6FC41]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=4047; t=1162226327; x=1163090327; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Ieprep]=20proposed=20charter=205=20priority=20levels=20 |To:John=20Rosenberg=20<jrrosenberg@lucent.com>,=20curtis@occnc.com; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DKCkdTDp5ObPX3Mk1slldGVfhvnQ=3D; b=WmsxiQuyneLopp5331mD8OsHXdFx0ewV3+yJ/+0+lryXuXWcN/gnrEKtqjNMElGv4zdt8w6I ZOez9ivxh36NSjAT+hMBu1uJAGbsmCcF1htgJHQWNbd2uB9+zzlSNPXs;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

At 05:39 PM 9/27/2006 -0500, John Rosenberg wrote:
>It's been mentioned that both RSVP and NSIS can carry both SIp priority 
>and DSCP.
>
>For the uninitiated (e.g. me!) would the use of either of these protocols 
>be used in a scenario where:
>
>1) an endpoint sent an INVITE to a call controller withtout RPH, but with 
>"dialed digits" that request a DSN precedence level (e.g. Flash);
>
>2) the call controller validated that the requested precedence level is 
>authorized;
>
>3) and the call controller then needs to inform the endpoint what specific 
>DSCP value (e.g. 41) to put in the bearer packets that the EP generates, 
>which value is based on a provisioned mapping resident in the call 
>controller between dsn precedence levels and DSCP values.

John

see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-mmusic-dscp-attribute-00.txt

Anyone wanting to make comments, please do so on the MMUSIC list to show 
those chairs there is interest in this ID.


>Thanks,
>
>John
>
>
>
>At 09:15 PM 9/26/2006, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >
> >In message <6.2.1.2.0.20060926190508.03463c30@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
> >John Rosenberg writes:
> >>
> >> At 05:52 PM 9/26/2006, ieprep-request@ietf.org wrote:
> >>
> >>  >Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:56:15 -0400
> >>  >From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
> >>
> >>  >In message
> >> <OFBAA95066.05652C8C-ON852571F5.004A9C8A-852571F5.004B6690@csc.com>
> >>  >Janet P Gunn writes:
> >>  >>
> >>  >>
> >>  >> As RFC 4412 makes perfectly clear, the RPH serves a dual role of
> >signalling
> >>  >> priority across an IP network (e.g. from an originating circuit 
> switched
> >>  >> access network to a terminating circuit switched access network) as
> >well as
> >>  >> signalling  priority within the IP network.
> >>  >>
> >>  >> For each of the namespaces described in RFC 4412, the number of 
> priority
> >>  >> values (5 in most cases, 6 in one) is driven by the former role, 
> based on
> >>  >> the number of priority values in use, or being considered, in the 
> access
> >>  >> network priority scheme.
> >>  >>
> >>  >> The issue of how many priority levels to differentiate WITHIN the IP
> >>  >> network is an issue currently being addressed by vendors and 
> providers.
> >>  >>
> >>  >> Janet
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >Janet,
> >>  >
> >>  >You are right, but you may be just focusing on SIP which is one peice
> >>  >of the puzzle.
> >>  >
> >>  >RFC 4412 does not make it perfectly clear whether we need 1 DSCP code
> >>  >point, EF, or 5 DSCP code points (IP Prec 0-4?)  or 15 DSCP code
> >>  >points (the 4 AF classes plus one more AF class.  Or is it some
> >>  >multiple of 6?  This RFC doesn't even mention DSCP.
> >>  >
> >>
> >> Let me add my voice and suggest that we're really in need of some 
> mechanism
> >> that allows the application (e.g. MLPP, ETS, whatever) to determine a
> >> "priority level" for a session and indicate to the endpoint that it's
> >> serving what DSCP value that the endpoint should use for its bearer 
> packets.
> >>
> >> It could be a header or parameter in some subset of SIP messages, it could
> >> be an attribute in SDP, it could be something else entirely. I think the
> >> whole question of how many and which DSCP values should be used for some
> >> arbitrary application is a little premature if we don't have a way for the
> >> application to get that value used.
> >>
> >> John Rosenberg
> >
> >
> >The discussion just went full circle.  We already have a SIP priority
> >in RFC4412.  Use of DSCP is only touched on in RFC4190.  Both the SIP
> >priority and DSCP value can be carried in microflow RSVP
> >(draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03.txt).
> >
> >Which DSCP value seems to be an open issue for now.  Discussion seems
> >to favor a new DSCP EF-like value for ETS.
> >
> >Curtis
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ieprep mailing list
>Ieprep@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep