RE:about QoS

"rick king" <> Tue, 13 October 1998 14:55 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id KAA25595 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:55:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by (8.8.8/8.6.12) id KAA21926 for; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:55:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from, claiming to be "" via SMTP by, id smtpdKDAa19767; Tue Oct 13 10:55:36 1998
Received: from by; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:23:32 -0400
Received: by (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA24993; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:44:35 -0400
Message-ID: <001601bdf6ae$50454020$>
Reply-To: "rick king" <>
From: "rick king" <>
To: "mpls" <>
Cc: "qosr" <>
Subject: RE:about QoS
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:35:15 +0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to

>>>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
>>>( 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
>>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.