> >3.2, list, DSCP.
> > Why is it only a single DSCP ? Also, is there only a single Flow ID
> > per SLS, or can there be many ?
>
> A set of DSCPs is definitly needed.
I think the concept of service should be enforced rather than to imply it
by some DSCP(s). What I mean is that, it may not be possible to implement
correctly a service just by observing the DSCP, traffic conformance
parameters and performance guarantees.
For example, it is possible to use a particular PHB (like EF PHB) to
deploy different services, but if you want to deploy an end to
end service by concatenating some intra-domain services like the Virtual
Wire PDB, you must follow this PDB specification. This has an implication
even in the network topology.
The deployment of such a service may require a previous engineering in
the network. Then, the negotiation process (a protocol ?) should be based
on services that networks are really able to implement.
This leads to something like the QBone BB idea of globally
well-known services (GWS). In this case a GWS ID should be included in the
SLS along with other parameters that specify paticular levels of this
services.
Comments ?
Regards,
Carlos
----------------------------------------------
Carlos Alberto Kamienski - cak@cin.ufpe.br
Federal University of Pernambuco - Brazil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 20:11:05 CEST