Carlos Alberto Kamienski wrote:
>
> > > BE traffic as it is thought today, should not need an e2e negotiation to
> > > work correctly. However it could be subject to a peer negotiation
> > > (adjacent providers).
> > >
> > > But, as we are trying to introduce the notion of e2e services with
> > > performance guarantees, will BE survive in the future ?
> >
> > It is not only e2e services in strict sense. A Service Negotiation may
> > lead to an allowed aggregate of CoS traffic at a particular access link,
> > while the egress interfaces from the transport domain are unspecified.
> > Such a negotiation may equally well apply to BE.
>
> End-users, IMO, should think of a service as being e2e, even though
> destinations are not specified.
allright, i think we talk about the same thing, sorry for the fuzz
> They should negotiate an e2e service but
> providers could implement it (or part of it) using BE.
> There is a distinction between a service (and its associated QoS
> guarantees) an user/application sees and the mechanisms used to implement
> it.
totally agreed. That's why we should focus the first and not the latter.
> An over-provisioned network without any qos mechanism may be used to
> implement a premium service, since the provider is able to negotiate
> services and to control offered qos guarantees.
> Regards
>
> Carlos
Yves
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 07:59:01 CET