[Tsvwg] Re: terminology issues in draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort - per flow or per user

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Sally,

At 18:29 24/07/2007, Sally Floyd wrote:
>Bob -
>
>>4/ User policing: Bulk per-customer (in our simplest effective proposal).
>>
>>Please don't imply that we're advocating per-flow policing. Admittedly we 
>>have always shown how you could do either per-flow or per-user. Before 
>>Oct-06 when I wrote that I-D on dismantling flow rate fairness, the 
>>community wanted to be able to police flow rates, so we wanted to show we 
>>could. But we neither require it nor recommend it. Our per-user policing 
>>makes per-flow policing redundant (but it's still there if an IPS wants it).
>>
>>For the avoidance of doubt, "Bulk per-customer" policing means policing 
>>all traffic crossing the customer's sending access interface using a bulk 
>>token bucket to regulate the bit rate of congestion marked packets to all 
>>destinations together.
>
>If you let me know where the draft implied that you were
>advocating per-flow policing, I would be happy to correct it.
>(I looked, but I didn't see it.)

I think you're right. I can't find it either now. Sorry.


>The draft is not intended to be about any specific proposed mechanism.
>It is simply in support of "simple best-effort traffic", and in support of
>flow-based fairness for simple best-effort traffic.

Yes, I know. But saying it's a "separate viewpoint about some related 
topics" reminded me a bit of the polite opener "With the greatest of 
respect...".

Cheers


Bob

>- Sally
>http://www.icir.org/floyd/

____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <[e-mail]>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    [phone]