Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 28 September 2006 18:52 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT0zM-0002gO-AW; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT0zK-0002gJ-TP for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:02 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT0zJ-0005mL-KA for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:02 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2006 14:52:02 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,231,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="104908382:sNHT55677800"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8SIq1dK011591; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:01 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k8SIprdk025804; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
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); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:52:00 -0400
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.89.20.58]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:51:59 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20060928134219.022e6008@email.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jmpolk@email.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:51:59 -0500
To: curtis@occnc.com, John Rosenberg <jrrosenberg@lucent.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels
In-Reply-To: <200609280529.k8S5T9NX002023@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com >
References: <Your message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:39:40 CDT." <6.2.1.2.0.20060927173433.0323abd0@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2006 18:52:00.0136 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E000880:01C6E32F]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2396; t=1159469521; x=1160333521; 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:curtis@occnc.com,=20John=20Rosenberg=20<jrrosenberg@lucent.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DKCkdTDp5ObPX3Mk1slldGVfhvnQ=3D; b=T8pOKDJnYQ4O6aAI6165t05t4Lz20Aw5YCmO82wne/VlKuqFrs3dyyPh0+3e5YxIkwRJ1EsB ezOy/bdrXpp06TIbL9qoNQ52/0+DaTYl8Cs/rqyahGm7tO+rWYToCc7M;
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: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4
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 01:29 AM 9/28/2006 -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>In message <6.2.1.2.0.20060927173433.0323abd0@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
>John Rosenberg writes:
>
>It's been mentioned that both RSVP and NSIS can carry both SIp priority and
>DSCP.

RSVP does not carry a SIP RPH text based namespace or priority-value, and 
NSIS (I believe) does not carry a RPH namespace in text, just a registered 
equivalent of the priority-value

<snip>

> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
>
>
>I'm not sure why the above example is special.  An RSVP PATH message
>and RESV response (passed back from the IP egress) should precede any
>SIP control traffic

SIP messages are always first, prior to any RSVP or NSIS messages, how else 
would a called party know what bandwidth to request in the RESV?

It also doesn't make a lot of sense sending a NSIS REQUEST message 
reserving resources if the called party isn't going to accept the call (for 
whatever reason).  This would be a waste of BW, and could case existing 
calls to be preempted unnecessarily.

>to avoid losing the control traffic.  You'd need
>to do that once for all SIP traffic, not per flow.  The requested
>bandwidth for the control traffic can be tiny.  An RSVP PATH message
>and RESV response should precede any RTP data flow (bearer packets) to
>avoid losing the voice payload.  The traffic must be policed to
>conform to the parameters sent in RSVP and should be marked with a
>fixed DSCP value appropriate for the service.
>
>The SIP priority and DSCP value would be in the RSVP PATH message

"SIP Priority" isn't in any RSVP message. RSVP has its own priority 
indication. They can be mapped to mean the same thing, but they aren't 
always the same thing.  RSVP has no "namespace" equivalent.

>sent
>before beginning to send RTP traffic (bearer packets).
>
>For any sort of traffic which didn't involve a SIP setup (or any setup
>protocol) you'd just send an RSVP PATH message and wait for the RESV
>before sending traffic.  If SIP wasn't used then there is no need for
>a SIP priority in the RSVP PATH message.

"SIP priority" in a PATH is not correct


>Am I missing something?

see above

>Perhaps an authorization or authentication
>issue?
>
>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