Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, Dilip Kandlur writes:
> 
>     We propose certain modifications to the existing IP model in order to
>     support both the applications with QoS requirements that could
>     justify a dedicated SVC, and applications that would rely on the
>     router-based infrastructure.
> 
>  The implication throughout is that an SVC is needed to support QoS.
> 
> The implication is that QoS requirements would be considered as a
> guide to setup SVCs.  Yes, there is also a belief that an SVC would
> provide better QoS (e.g. delay) since it avoids IP level handling
> costs at intermediate nodes.
> 
> -- Dilip.

I acknowlege that this belief exists.  If this delay was significant,
it would favor a direct VC.  There also exists a beleif that
predictive service not offerred by ATM SVCs will make better
utilization of available bandwidth while meeting the requirement of a
large class of applications.  This would favor shared VC.

The point I tried to make was not be try to bias the choice of
technology in an architecture document and to be fair in including all
of the architectures for providing QoS under consideration within the
IETF.  This way the architecture document will stand regardless of
which selection(s) prove to hold the most significant benefits.

Curtis