Hello i have just joined the list. If i am giving any point that has been
discussed already please pardon me.
I haven't gone through the draft that you are talking about. I am just
trying to see if my comment could throw some light on the below pasted
paragraph.
>>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 ?
I think since services are well defined in the standards (like EF PHB and
AF PHB group) the customer domain(upstream) can simply use
the names (like AFx.y or EF) rather than code points to request service from
the provider domain and possibly the Corresponding codepoint that the domain
used for that corresponding service(which would typically be used for
remarking by the provider domain). If we are talking about some properietary
services that are not defined in the Standard(rfc) then definitely there has
to be a clear understanding about that in the customer domain. The other way
as you said would be to quantify the charecteristices like throughput,
jitter, etc on some scale and request the provider domain for that
requirement along with the Codepoint used by the customer domain(for
remarking) using the SLS.
The provider domain can then take a decision on the CoS (including
properietary) to be given to satisfy the requirement subjected to avaiabilty
of resources at the time of service provisioning.
Please comment on this.
We (in our company) have implemented DiffServ EF, AF and BE CoS. We are
looking to implement SLS. Any input in this regard is
solicited
Can someone kindly give me the link to [tequila/sls]
Thanks & Regards
Malick
----- Original Message -----
From: Yves T'Joens <yves.tjoens@alcatel.be>
To: <sls@ist-tequila.org>
Cc: <brunner@ccrle.nec.de>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] comments on the TEQUILA draft by W. Almesberger
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 - 15:46:30 CEST