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, 8 Oct 1998 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
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