Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation

And RFC 4594 (e.g. section 4.10) introduces the term 'Low-Priority Data'
-- which had been called Scavenger in the QBSS reference below.

-----Original Message-----
From: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2pi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Stanislav Shalunov
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:24 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation

See also http://qos.internet2.edu/wg/wg-documents/qbss-definition.txt

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
wrote:
> RFC3662?
>
> On 2008-6-7, at 20:09, ext Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Several of the meeting presentations referred to "Scavenger service".
>>
>> As a definition, assuming I am allowed to define using diffserv, how
>> about:
>>
>> Unmarked packets, and packets marked for better diffserv classes will
>> receive preferential queueing treatment compared with those marked
>> with
>> Scavenger class service.  To avoid starvatation, the Scavanger queue
>> will be guaranteed a minimal percentage (10%?) of the data capacity
>> even
>> when normal and better services could consume all available
bandwidth.
>>
>> That is basically the inverse of the simplified EF definition, for
>> achieving essentially the opposite goal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> p2pi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
>


-- 
Stanislav Shalunov
http://shlang.com/
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi