Re: about QoS
"Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <iprsvp@yahoo.com> Thu, 08 October 1998 18:02 UTC
Received: from wwwnni.us.newbridge.com (wwwnni.us.newbridge.com [204.177.219.11]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA10543 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 14:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com (herndon-gw1 [204.177.219.66]) by wwwnni.us.newbridge.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA18779 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 14:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from distmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:48:57 -0400
Received: by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06156; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:22:53 -0400
Message-ID: <19981008172426.677.rocketmail@send103.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 10:24:26 -0700
From: "Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <iprsvp@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: about QoS
To: mpls <mpls@netlab.indiana.edu>, rick king <rickyy@bbs.huizhou.gd.cn>, qosr@newbridge.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-qosr@newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to qosr-request@newbridge.com
hai, The reasons can be: IPv4 has TOS bit. But most of the current implementations ignore that bit. ( I think it is same ( to some extent ) ur proposal. 1. If u have only bit then u can't support different classes of QoS. 2. RSVP and MPLS are not just not ment for QoS but Multicast QoS service. ( I mean they provide mechanisms to support such stuff) 3. Treating all the classes the same, other than the best effort traffic is not a good n/w design. 4. Why do u think RSVP implementation is diffcult. I think some body a good implementation. I remember that somebody mentioned about their implementation in this mailing list. ( I agree that deployment in the current interner is diffcult..) 5. If you want to support IP telephony kind of applications we need RSVP. Correct me If I am wrong. Thanks -Raghu. ---rick king <rickyy@bbs.huizhou.gd.cn> wrote: > > As I have know about MPLS,RSVP,Diffserv,they are all supposed to offer QoS > over Internet.But all difficult to implement. I wonder why not use only one > bit in IP header to indicate this packet's priority? Let's call this bit as > P bit. If it's set to 1,then the packet has high priority.otherwise the > packet is treat as usual.The router will keep the delay of high priority > packet within a range.When congestion occur ,the router will discard the > packet with P=0. > > If you set P to 1,then you will pay for it.Every host and router can set the > P bit.if the router decide that the network can't support too much packet > with P=1,it can override the P bit ,and you will not be charged. > > I think this method is easy to put in practice.any suggestion to it? > > == ------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- about QoS rick king
- Re: about QoS Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli
- Re: about QoS Kevin DeLange