Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Tue, 26 September 2006 13:44 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSDEw-0004Y8-60; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:44:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSDEu-0004Y3-Iu for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:44:48 -0400
Received: from amer-mta07.csc.com ([20.137.52.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSDEt-00020w-CQ for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:44:48 -0400
Received: from amer-gw09.csc.com (amer-gw09.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta07.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k8QDif9b008586; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:44:45 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <200609260521.k8Q5LdcQ097727@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels
To: curtis@occnc.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OFBAA95066.05652C8C-ON852571F5.004A9C8A-852571F5.004B6690@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:44:40 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 09/26/2006 09:43:33 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
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





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



Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> wrote on 09/26/2006 01:21:39 AM:


>
> As long as the number of priority/preemption classes remains too open
> ended, the mapping onto DSCP and Diffserv-TE remains uncertain.  For
> example, there has to be a strong technical justification for five
> priority classes, not just "because ITU specified five" before there
> is much of a chance for a set of new DSCP values to be assigned as
> anything other than experimental.
>
>


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