Re: [Ieprep] re-charter
ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Fri, 15 July 2005 21:08 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtXQU-0001P4-IY; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:08:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtXQQ-0001OH-Ou for ieprep@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:08:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14526 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hermes.hosts.co.uk ([212.84.175.24]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtXtF-00037N-4N for ieprep@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:38:40 -0400
Received: from [69.138.71.61] (helo=[192.168.1.101]) by hermes.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DtXTf-0001l4-2t; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:12:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <OFD34CD50B.A0E98A27-ON8525703F.006FB346-8525703F.00705C03@csc.com>
References: <OFD34CD50B.A0E98A27-ON8525703F.006FB346-8525703F.00705C03@csc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <804511E4-CD31-48C8-B2BD-E668CD0B849A@g11.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] re-charter
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:08:01 -0400
To: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733)
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Sender: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
ok, then you are advocating a particular realization of EF as stipulated in rfc3246, as opposed to a new DSCP. thanks for the clarification. -ken On Jul 15, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote: > >> >> On Jul 13, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Richard F Kaczmarek wrote: >> >> >>> <snip> >>> >> >> >>> With the Cisco routers we were using, >>> we could allocate bandwidth in the EF queue for emergency >>> communications >>> and for normal traffic. In this latter case, some sort of marker >>> (e.g., >>> DSCP) may be needed for emergency traffic, but a unique per hop >>> behavior >>> may not be needed. >>> >> >> for this last sentence, if what you are advocating is defining >> another DSCP value but with no distinctive corresponding per hop >> behavior, then I think that is a non-starter. >> >> > > >> From RFC 3246 >> > " Finally, it is possible to implement hierarchical scheduling > algorithms, such that some non-FIFO scheduling algorithm is run on > sub-flows within the EF aggregate, while the EF aggregate as a > whole > could be served at high priority or with a large weight by the top- > level scheduler. Such an algorithm might perform per-input > scheduling or per-microflow scheduling within the EF aggregate, for > example. " > > This is one way of describing the functionality above. > > Also from RFC 3246 > "It should be noted that it is quite acceptable for a Diffserv domain > to provide multiple instances of EF. Each instance should be > characterizable by the equations in Section 2.2 of this > specification. The effect of having multiple instances of EF on > the > E_a and E_p values of each instance will depend considerably on how > the multiple instances are implemented. For example, in a multi- > level priority scheduler, an instance of EF that is not at the > highest priority may experience relatively long periods when it > receives no service while higher priority instances of EF are > served. > This would result in relatively large values of E_a and E_p. By > contrast, in a WFQ-like scheduler, each instance of EF would be > represented by a queue served at some configured rate and the > values > of E_a and E_p could be similar to those for a single EF instance." > > And at the San Diego meeting, one of the authors of RFC 3246 (sorry, I > forget who) explicitly said in his presentation that there was > never any > intention to restrict EF to a single DSCP. > > > There do, of course, remain issues as to whether it is a good idea > or not. > But it is permissible under RFC 3246. > > Janet > > _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- RE: [Ieprep] re-charter Dolly, Martin C, ALABS
- Re: [Ieprep] re-charter Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] re-charter ken carlberg