Hi Yves,
regarding the SLS invocation and subscription, I also think
that it makes sense to distinguish these two phases, especially
for dynamic micro-flow SLSs.
The SLS invocation may be associated with CAC (and blocking)
which would then allow the network operator to oversubscribe
its resources and offer a lower price for the customer who is
willing to go through such a CAC procedure.
Regards,
Gabor
> From yves.tjoens@alcatel.be Fri Nov 3 16:56:19 2000
> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 16:54:30 +0100
> From: "Yves T'Joens" <yves.tjoens@alcatel.be>
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: sls@ist-tequila.org
> CC: "'Gabor.Fodor@era-t.ericsson.se'" <Gabor.Fodor@era-t.ericsson.se>
> Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] Comments on Tequila / SLS draft
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> > "Kamal Bath (EPA)" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> Hi Kamal,
>
> >
> > We have been discussing the Tequila draft and have two points that
> > we'd like
> > to raise.
> >
> > 1) Section 3.5 of the draft discusses Performance Guarantees using
> > four
> > parameters: delay, jitter, packet loss and throughput and these
> > service
> > guarantees may be quantitative or qualitative.
> >
> > Something we consider essential is a definition of time periods to use
> > in
> > measuring the SLS, i.e. whether these parameters represent the overall
> >
> > average for the entire duration of the SLS or whether they indicate
> > the
> > worst acceptable time periods for the SLS duration.
> >
> > An interpretation of an SLS over 2 months with a specified packet loss
> > of
> > 10E-3, could simply require the average packet loss over the entire 2
> > months
> > to be less than 10E-3. If a time period (e.g. 1 hour) is specified,
> > then the SLS
> > would require the average packet loss over any 1 hour period within
> > the 2
> > months to be less than 10E-3.
> >
> > Obviously, the 2 SLSs above are quite different in requirements, and
> > it is
> > important for the customer to be able to clearly define the SLS
> > service
> > required.
>
> this introduces in fact the requirement for another parameter in the
> SLS, unless we can find a single solution for that...which i doubt.
>
> >
> > 2) The second issue we would like to raise is the concept of blocking
> > and
> > associated probability. We can see a use for a second type of SLS for
> > connection oriented services. In this SLS, the user defines the
> > characteristics
> > either for the aggregate traffic level or for the individual flow, as
> > well as a traffic
> > profile (inter-arrival times, holding times, Bandwidth, etc) and
> > blocking probability
> > for the individual connections.
> >
> > When the individual connections are established, an admission control
> > request is made for them. The operator may thus reject individual
> > sessions,
> > but the SLS defines what level of these services the operator should
> > dimension for. This may allow the operator to oversubscribe their
> > network.
> >
> > The advantage with this SLS for the user is they can maintain
> > stringent QoS
> > per flow requirements due to the admission control, even when the
> > network is
> > oversubscribed.
> >
>
> potentially the framework draft may have already shown you that the
> above is within scope. it makes me think about the difference in
> subscription and invocation.
>
> cheers
> Yves
>
> > Regards,
> > Gabor and Kamal
>
>
> --
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Yves T'Joens |
> | Project Manager Internet Access and Edge |
> | Network Strategy Group |
> | Francis Wellesplein, 1 phone : +32 (0)3 240 7890 |
> | 2018 Antwerp fax : +32 (0)3 240 9932 |
> | Belgium email: yves.tjoens@alcatel.be |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 09:06:42 CET