On Fri Oct 13 20:14:35 2000 Carlos Alberto Kamienski wrote:
> 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 ?
could you please provide an example in which GWS ID can NOT be avoided
(assuming that SLS negotiation includes already "other parameters that
specify paticular levels of this services")?
cheers
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 17:33:36 CEST