[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    (IPng 3989) Re: Qry on Traffic Policing (IPv6 header
From:       Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco ! com>
Date:       1997-06-12 1:01:31
[Download RAW message or body]

At 04:31 PM 06/11/97 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote:

>
>Conclusion: to get the best result, put the smarts at the endpoints
>and send exactly the data which you choose and which the network can
>carry.
>

There are two issues here, each are equally valid, but it appears we
are talking past one another.

One might suggest that having applications support to set priority
is a fundamental design goal, whether one decides to honor it or
not is a matter of policy. I know some service providers who would
be happy with the downstream application setting priority -- they
would just require adequate measurement tools to bill them for
the volume of 'premium' class traffic as opposed to the volume
of 'best effort' traffic. Que sera, sera.

On the other hand, there are those of us who would prefer to
engineer policing mechanisms into the network to guard against
downstream applications setting priority higher than I would
care for them to, so I can properly do capacity engineering
in my network.

This is a policy issue -- we should simply develop the
protocol support to handle both.

- paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]