Re: [p2pi] Follow-Up from Comcast Presentation

Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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.

   Hmm... we really _ought_ to be able to define "scavenger service"...

   To me, "scavenger service" implies that the application is happy to
see some periods -- say ten minutes or more -- where no packets are
getting delivered at all, so long as the connection isn't lost.

   (Of course, this definition starts to fall apart at inter-planetary
distances...)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi