RE:about QoS

"Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <> Tue, 13 October 1998 17:06 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id NAA00161 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (herndon-gw1 []) by (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA13655 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:14:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:50:13 -0400
Received: by (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27646; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:21:45 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <>
Subject: RE:about QoS
To: rick king <>, mpls <>
Cc: qosr <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to

Hi rick,

 >>>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.
> >>yes,I know the TOS bit.I think the reason that current
> >>ignore TOS bits is:
> >>1)The classic IP software like telnet,ftp,web brower don't need
QoS, so
> >>these days  router doesn't support the TOS bits.
> >>2)If you want to support ToS,then you need to bill the consumer by
the TOS
> >>he applying.Many people maybe don't like this before.But now as IP
> >>appear,I think someone will like to pay for it.
>> Yes I agree. That's past.

>>1. If u have only bit then u can't support different classes of QoS.
> >>you are right,I only take it as example.
I am not able to get u properly. We want to support different classes
of QoS. Do u agree with that.

> >>>2. RSVP and MPLS are not just not ment for QoS but Multicast QoS
> >>>service.
> >>>( I mean they provide mechanisms to support such stuff)
> >>So it's still a kind of QoS..:)
What I mean by multicast QoS is RSVP support requests merging. Which 
is a lot.

 >>>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
> >>>a good implementation. I remember that somebody mentioned about
> >>> implementation in this mailing list. ( I agree that deployment
in the
> >>>current interner is diffcult..)
> >>As I know RSVP need some routing protocol to support it,maybe MPLS
is a
> >good
Yes u do need a routing protocol for RSVP implementation.  There is 
 one internet draft on QoS extensions to OSPF. ( QOSPF by gurein..)
 That can support RSVP .  I agree that MPLS can be used for supporting 
 rsvp. But about the present networks which are based IP routing 

I think u arrived at bit proposal by the congention bit in the ATM
Do u!!! I don't think that is a good choice. 
> >>choice. I am expect them too..



Get your free address at