Carlos Alberto Kamienski wrote:
>
> > > Carlos, Yves,
> > >
> > > In the context of the draft, the DSCP is a mean for a flow
> > > specification. If it is signalled by the network, it is specified in the
> > > offer from the network. The DSCP specifed in the SLS draft has in my
> > > understanding nothing to do with the DSCP the packets are market in the
> > > network. But it can be used for the traffic specification.
> > >
> >
> > totally correct. DSCPs at the ingress link are just another way of
> > indicating a to be differentiated flow.
> > cheers
> > Yves
>
> Why use the same name for a different think if this work is beginning from
> scratch ? (there are no historical reasons for it).
> Is it not a misuse, since the acronym DSCP has been defined by the
> diffserv wg ?
not particularly, it is the official name for a field in the header. in
the core off the network, it is used as guide for per hop behaviour
treatment, at the access, it could be used to bind it to some service
contract.
>
> I my opinion there should be a field in the SLS for specifying exactly the
> service one has in mind. It may be a well-known service identifier or a
> identifier that has just a peer-to-peer meaning. I cannot see a
> negociation process where both sides are able to understand clearly other
> side's idea of the service just by observing some fields in the SLS (for
> any service one can ever imagine!).
>
this seems interesting as idea, can you extend a bit on it ? how would
one characterise a well-known service ? by indicating a certain service
level in terms of throughput, delay, jitter, packet loss ? so why
couldn't these parameters then not be explicitly in an SLS ?
> Regards,
>
> Carlos
cheers
Yves
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 09:26:30 CEST