Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 27 September 2006 23:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSjDq-0006Vn-S4; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:53:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSjDp-0006Vc-OL for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:53:49 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSjDn-0008G5-Dt for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:53:49 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2006 16:53:47 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,226,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="326069110:sNHT54560998"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8RNrkqG003937; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:46 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k8RNrjid002037; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:45 -0700
Received: from [10.32.244.222] ([10.32.244.222]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060927173433.0323abd0@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
References: <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> <6.2.1.2.0.20060927173433.0323abd0@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4582B94C-640E-4D2D-96BA-6DC704F5172B@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0700
To: John Rosenberg <jrrosenberg@lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2006 23:53:45.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B21EF10:01C6E290]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1578; t=1159401226; x=1160265226; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Ieprep]=20proposed=20charter=205=20priority=20levels=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D7s5PQa4KVvarhFYWM3yXHfLh4ls=3D; b=o4UfFTlfQwxzw5f+30QNFF2bOv74S4B5T03IORb3DVfnE0hYUCfkchEsdNxY/6aU+2FXDZfI hVo9hf3r5W2LUxvHoSkb3WENLfg65lWI95psqwHAy5xDmkKbZYXhdhjR;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6.cisco.com; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
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

On Sep 27, 2006, at 3:39 PM, 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.

This is all stated in layer seven words and doesn't much address  
layer 3 issues. The thing is that the layer 7 issues are different  
than teh layer 3 issues, and both have to be addressed.

Yes, I think (as described in RFC 3312), the two would be used  
together. I have some slides at ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/new-ef if  
you're interested to peruse them.

The big differences between RSVP and NSIS, taken from 33,000 feet,  
are that RSVP works for multicast while NSIS doesn't, NSIS provides a  
firewall traversal mechanism that RSVP doesn't, and RSVP has this all  
spelled out in consensus standards and mostly implemented in vendor  
product that has been proven interoperable, while NSIS is quite a bit  
further behind on the road map.

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