Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-design-05

[Janet P Gunn <[e-mail]>]

ken carlberg <[e-mail]> wrote on 04/19/2011 08:43:31 AM:


> 
> you can't have it both ways.  you cannot say that the Namespaces in 
> rfc4412 are the ones to be used, but that their defined 
> characteristics (either being queuing or preemption) are inappropriate.
> 
Ken,

Consider the circuit switched models from which the RPH concept was 
derived.

With queueing, we queue for trunks, we queue for radio resources.  But we 
do NOT QUEUE in response to SS7 congestion (just a higher level protection 
from being dropped), nor do we queue in response to call gapping or other 
network management controls (just exempt from them).  That does not in any 
way diminish the nature of the HPC (High Probability of Completion) 
marking as inherently "queuing based".

Similarly, in the circuit switched version, MLPP preempts established 
sessions. But it DOES NOT preempt SS7 processing, or network call gapping. 
 That does not in any way diminish the nature of MLPP as "preemption 
based".

Same here.

Using more appropriate (than queuing or preemption) techniques to address 
priority in response to SIP server overload (e.g., exemption from load 
shedding) in no way diminishes the nature of the Namespace as "queuing 
based" or "preemption based".

Janet