RE:about QoS

["rick king" <[e-mail]>]

>>>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 implementations
>>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 phone
>>appear,I think someone will like to pay for it.
>>
>>
>>>1. If u have only bit then u can't support different classes of QoS.
>>you are right,I only take it as example.
>>>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..:)
>>>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..)
>>As I know RSVP need some routing protocol to support it,maybe MPLS is a
>good
>>choice. I am expect them too..
>>> 5. If you want to support IP telephony kind of applications
>>> we need RSVP.
>>maybe,but there is diffserv now..*_^
>>>
>>>Correct me If I am wrong.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>-Raghu.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--QAA22137.907921468/noya.bupt.edu.cn--
>>
>
>
>--EAC20108.908270041/indiana.edu--
>