From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 3 00:38:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17561 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA00063; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA00034 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:39:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wiproecmx1.wipro.com (wiproecmx1.wipro.com [164.164.31.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17544 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ecvwall11.wipro.com (ecvwall1.wipro.com [192.168.181.23]) by wiproecmx1.wipro.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f73EuoL01814 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:56:50 -0500 (GMT) Received: from gopal ([192.168.178.221]) by ecmail.mail.wipro.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GHH64K00.8LS for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:06:20 +0530 Message-ID: <004701c11c2e$607ef190$ddb2a8c0@wipro.com> From: "GOPAL NAYAK" To: Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Diffserv-interest] subscribe gopal.nayak@wipro.com Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit subscribe gopal.nayak@wipro.com --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail & notify us immediately at mailadmin@wipro.com --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 3 00:39:01 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17583 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA00166; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA00127 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wiproecmx1.wipro.com (wiproecmx1.wipro.com [164.164.31.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17576 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ecvwall11.wipro.com (ecvwall1.wipro.com [192.168.181.23]) by wiproecmx1.wipro.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f73EvhL02069 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:57:43 -0500 (GMT) Received: from wipro.com ([127.0.0.1]) by ecmail.mail.wipro.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GHH66100.7KL for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:07:13 +0530 From: "GOPAL NAYAK" To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Message-ID: <1165de115227.1152271165de@wipro.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:37:13 -0500 X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary" Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Diffserv-interest] subscribe gopal.nayak@wipro.com Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit subscribe gopal.nayak@wipro.com --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail & notify us immediately at mailadmin@wipro.com --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 7 19:28:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14184 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14657; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14628 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14181 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aludra.usc.edu (demir@aludra.usc.edu [128.125.253.184]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id QAA02441 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demir@localhost) by aludra.usc.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/usc) with ESMTP id f77NSrA03942 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:28:53 -0700 (PDT) From: demir To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Diffserv-interest] intra-domain (diffserv) resource allocation Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org To my knowledge, the most of the research in resource allocation for Diffserv networks are related to inter-domain (diffserv) resource allocation mechanisms where resources provisioned statically. when dynamic resource allocation is required, they are not clear in specific algorithms to achieve service requirements for traffic aggregates (I'm sorry if I am wrong on this), i.e. bandwidth brokers (BBs); I think UCLA's BB provides specific algorithms to achieve inter-domain resource allocation by means of cushions given in two-tier resource management model. I think this is important where ressources are provisioned dynamically. this may not be important in the core domains, but it may be necessary towards the leaf domains. Is there any research/paper addressing mechanisms/algorithms for intra-domain resource management/allocation? Moreover, towards the leaf domains, instead of aggregate traffic level resource allocation/provisioning, microflow/application/flow-level resource provisioning may be demanded. As far as I know, one way to achieve this is RSVP/Intserv(like) mechanisms may take place. I think this is a heavy-weight + fine-grained way to provide end-to-end QoS where the core of the network is Diffserv (my concern is to achieve end-to-end QoS where the core domains are Diffserv. Any comments/ideas/references? Thank you very much. Thank you. Alper K. Demir _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 8 13:06:08 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17303 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25035; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25006 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-2.iastate.edu (mailhub-2.iastate.edu [129.186.140.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17276 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from striegel.iastate.edu (striegel.ee.iastate.edu [129.186.205.4]) by mailhub-2.iastate.edu (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0) with ESMTP id f78H4CrH031882 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:04:12 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808114354.050dfdd8@magico.mail.iastate.edu> X-Sender: magico@magico.mail.iastate.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:03:09 -0500 To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org From: Aaron D Striegel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Diffserv-interest] DiffServ & Multicasting Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Has there been any efforts beyond the IETF draft by Bless & Wuerhle on DiffServ multicasting? Our group has been doing a bit of research in this area and I'm a bit concerned about multicast in a DiffServ environment. The two areas I am primarily concerned about are: - Scalability of per-group information in the core router Is it scalable to include per-group information as per traditional IP multicast in core routers? Per-group information seems to go against the spirit of DiffServ as a whole. Although the information is not affected by the number of downstream receivers, it seems that the number of multicast groups could get extremely large. With a protocol such as SSM, it seems things could get even worse with even more state information in the core. One of the examples I had heard was a company offering all of its objects on its webpage with a separate multicast stream for each object. Although this is probably a bit of overkill, it seems that this could be a very real possibility, if even on a limited sense. - Complexity of multicasting in the core router This ties back in with the scalability issue but what about the various timing/signalling associated with multicasting (soft state, bandwidth negotiation (?)). This seems like a fairly heavy burden to place on core routers when dealing with the potential maintenance and signalling associated with per-group information. These items seem like things which are best left to edge routers rather than being dealt with in the core. - Keep intelligence at edges It seems that to really follow the spirit of DiffServ (keep the complexity at the edges), the tree maintenance issues and signalling should be left to the edge routers with core routers only routing packets (tunnel from edge-to-edge) or responding to information embedded in the packet (encapsulation approach). Embedding the information in the packet seems to follow suit with the notion of per-hop behavior (how to treat the packet is contained in the packet and not at the core node itself). Although there was quite a bit of discussion on multicasting some time ago and I would like to discuss what other people think on this issue. I think the notion of keeping the multicast intelligence at the edges has significant benefits versus using traditional IP multicast and I think this is a topic that merits further discussion. --------------------------------------- Aaron Striegel Ph.D Candidate, Computer Engineering - Internet QoS Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering Iowa State University Webpage: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~magico _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 8 14:08:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18491 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26785; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26756 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18464 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10002 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:07:38 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine01.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.41]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA51150 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3B717F5E.DA0DAB54@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:05:18 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Diffserv-interest] Desperately seeking... Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am seeing bounces on the diffserv-interest list for this address: sumitkm@mindtree.com which is not actually a member of the list, so it must be hiding behind another name. Does anybody here have an idea who it might be? Thanks Brian _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 9 04:12:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17009 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25714; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25685 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c000.snv.cp.net (c000-h007.c000.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA16979 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (cpmta 9933 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 01:11:13 -0700 Received: from host217-33-142-126.ietf.ignite.net (HELO tm.uka.de) (217.33.142.126) by smtp.wehrle.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 01:11:13 -0700 X-Sent: 9 Aug 2001 08:11:13 GMT X-Mozilla-Status: 0801 Message-ID: <3B71C1F8.8090906@tm.uka.de> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:49:28 +0200 From: Klaus Wehrle Organization: University of Karlsruhe - Institute of Telematics User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010701 X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron D Striegel CC: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] DiffServ & Multicasting References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808114354.050dfdd8@magico.mail.iastate.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hy Aaron, > The two areas I am primarily concerned about are: > > - Scalability of per-group information in the core router > > Is it scalable to include per-group information as per traditional IP > multicast in core routers? Per-group information seems to go against > the spirit of DiffServ as a whole. I agree with you. This could possibly result in a scalability problem. We discussed about it, when writing the mc/diffserv-draft But the first aim of our draft was to solve the problem with multicast and diffserv (we called it neglected reservation subtree problem - NRS). the problem with extremely large group entries in a core router is independant from the NRS-problem. when moving the tree maintenance to the edge routers you will also have the NRS-problem. > - Keep intelligence at edges > > It seems that to really follow the spirit of DiffServ (keep the > complexity at the edges), the tree maintenance issues and signalling > should be left to the edge routers with core routers only routing > packets (tunnel from edge-to-edge) this seems to me like the spirit of mpls ;-) bye, klaus -- Klaus Wehrle Institut für Telematik, Universität Karlsruhe (TH) Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany Phone: +49 721 608 6414, Fax: +49 721 388097 mailto:wehrle@tm.uka.de http://www.tm.uka.de/~wehrle _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 9 18:25:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06633 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23839; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23810 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pmesmtp01.wcom.com (pmesmtp01.wcom.com [199.249.20.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06622 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dgismtp04.wcomnet.com ([166.38.58.144]) by firewall.mcit.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #47837) with ESMTP id <0GHT002A1NKUFK@firewall.mcit.com> for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:24:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dgismtp04.wcomnet.com by dgismtp04.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42262) with SMTP id <0GHT00D01NKPUD@dgismtp04.wcomnet.com> for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:24:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lyao ([166.60.19.217]) by dgismtp04.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42262) with SMTP id <0GHT0067INKFFV@dgismtp04.wcomnet.com>; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:24:18 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 18:06:02 -0400 From: Lei Yao To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Cc: dave.mcdysan@wcom.com, lei.yao@wcom.com Reply-to: lei.yao@wcom.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Diffserv-interest] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This draft proposes mechanisms for Diffserv over Ethernet. We would like to learn if there is any common interest on Diffserv over specific data link layer, e.g. Ethernet. Thanks. Lei > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:58:41 -0400 > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > To: IETF-Announce: ; > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : Differentiated Services Over 802.3 > Networks Framework > Author(s) : D. McDysan , L.Yao > Filename : draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 13-Jul-01 > > This document describes the deliver of IETF Differentiated Services > over MANs or WANs built from interconnected IEEE 802.3 MAC Bridges > (switches). It describes the overlay model which uses Ethernet over > MPLS to provide Diffserv support, and the mapping model which maps > Diffserv PHBs to Ethernet user priorities and uses the inherent > capabilities of relevant IEEE 802 technologies and, in particular, > [802.1D-1998] queuing features and [802.1Q-1998] VLAN tags, to > support Diffserv. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with > the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-mcdysan-diffserv-ethernet-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 13 01:54:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01997 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25437; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25408 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enisei.postech.ac.kr (enisei.postech.ac.kr [141.223.82.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01836 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jay@localhost) by enisei.postech.ac.kr (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f7D5uCY28632 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:56:12 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:56:12 +0900 From: Jaeyoung Kim To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Message-ID: <20010813145612.A28610@enisei.postech.ac.kr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Subject: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Hi, I have an practical question on DiffServ networks. If DiffServ technology is deployed in most of backbone networks, what is the proper network size of a single DiffServ domain? How many edge routers and core routers? Since I'm studying in monitoring DiffServ networks and I don't have experienced with the big backbone networks, I'd like to ask you out there about this information. I think I've heard some backbone networks have already deployed DiffServ technology. How big is your network size in terms of number of edge/core routers? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jay Kim -- ============================================================================ __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE TODAY !!! \ /\ / ------------------------------------------------------------------- /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 11:20:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07109 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24233; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24206 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07103 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19294; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:21:21 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine05.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.45]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23838; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:21:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:23:54 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jaeyoung Kim CC: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain References: <20010813145612.A28610@enisei.postech.ac.kr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't see why there would be a "proper" size. Diffserv is designed to be scaleable, and I don't see any reason that deploying diffserv would cause you to make an administrative domain bigger or smaller. Brian Jaeyoung Kim wrote: > > Hi, I have an practical question on DiffServ networks. > If DiffServ technology is deployed in most of backbone networks, > what is the proper network size of a single DiffServ domain? > How many edge routers and core routers? > > Since I'm studying in monitoring DiffServ networks and I don't have > experienced with the big backbone networks, I'd like to ask you out > there about this information. > > I think I've heard some backbone networks have already deployed > DiffServ technology. How big is your network size in terms of number > of edge/core routers? > > Thanks in advance. > > Sincerely, > Jay Kim > > -- > ============================================================================ > __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE TODAY !!! > \ /\ / ------------------------------------------------------------------- > /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay > \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 18:42:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16460 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA08567; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA08539 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net [129.250.36.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16400 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.250.38.64] (helo=dfw-mmp4.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net with esmtp id 15WmrY-000576-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:40:40 +0000 Received: from [206.184.21.50] (helo=paex001.corp.telseon.com) by dfw-mmp4.email.verio.net with esmtp id 15WmrX-0006aT-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:40:39 +0000 Received: by paex001.corp.telseon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:40:39 -0700 Message-ID: <8A4FFB0EA1DE44488DBE6DCD0CA9E4A778C6B1@Mvex01.corp.telseon.com> From: John Geevarghese To: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:40:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Diffserv-interest] Packet Burst Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Can Someone help me on this doubt .. Some Pointers to Research Literature .. Questions : Consider a rate limit scheme say "Credit based " support X Kbits over 100 Mb links. When the link is changed to 1000 Mb is it expected to change the expected burst size to 10 * X Kb What is the rule dictating Burst definition over large pipe networks ..? Thanks John _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 19:01:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16727 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA09172; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA09132 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16667 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA30750; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:57:31 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine05.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.45]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26178; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:57:30 +0100 Message-ID: <3B79AD43.9644961@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:59:15 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jay Wang CC: Geevarghese John , diffserv-interest@ietf.org References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Diffserv-interest] Re: [Diffserv] Doubt regarding "Packet Burst" Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jay, I don't know which mail agent you are using, but it doesn't send plain text which is the IETF norm. I've switched this thread to diffserv-interest. It is clear that you are right; a simple linear calculation is not suitable. If the traffic source is relatively smooth the linear calculation may be wasteful, and if the source is very bursty it may be insufficient. It really depends on the situation. We do know that even smooth traffic gets to be self similar as it competes with other flows, so the distance from the source may also be a factor. There is no simple answer. Brian > With respect to rate Limiting, the burst size allows the provider to specify the tolerance level against > traffic burst of a particular 'subscrber'. Given this, I tend to believe the burst size parameter should > only adjust along with the subscriber traffic profile as oppose to the overall (presumable shared) > physical link (size). So typically I think it would be reasonable to increase the burst size if the BW > allocated to the corresponding subscriber increases. However, I am not sure if the linear model as > you use in your example a proper one. This all depends on, again, the subscriber traffic profile. > > - jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: diffserv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:diffserv-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Geevarghese John > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:07 AM > To: diffserv@ietf.org > Subject: [Diffserv] Doubt regarding "Packet Burst" > > Can Someone help me on this doubt .. > > Sorry if this is not the correct mailingin list for the same ... > > Questions : > > Consider a rate limit scheme say "Credit based " support X Kbits over 100 MB links. > > When the link is changed to 1000 MB is it expected to change the expected > > burst size to 10 * X Kb > > What is the rule dictating Burst definition over large pipe networks ..? > > Thanks > > John _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 23:49:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22413 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA14261; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA14230 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f232.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.232]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22271 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:42:53 -0700 Received: from 66.67.75.130 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:42:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [66.67.75.130] From: "rajesh revuru" To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:42:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2001 03:42:53.0073 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CF24010:01C1253C] Subject: [Diffserv-interest] path computation algorthm in diffserv nodes.. Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org

hi eerveryone,

iam a graduate student at syracuse university Newyork...and iam new to this mailing list..iam working in the areas of the "path computation algorithms using two two metrics (using the cost of the link, and delay constraints),

please anyone suggest any previous works in this area iam really interested in that  area,

please excuse me if i would have sounded like a amateur in presenting my issue...

thanks a lot ,and waiting for your responses

Rajesh Revuru

>From: Brian E Carpenter
>To: Jay Wang
>CC: Geevarghese John , diffserv-interest@ietf.org
>Subject: [Diffserv-interest] Re: [Diffserv] Doubt regarding "Packet Burst"
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:59:15 -0500
>
>Jay, I don't know which mail agent you are using, but it doesn't send plain text which
>is the IETF norm.
>
>I've switched this thread to diffserv-interest.
>
>It is clear that you are right; a simple linear calculation is not suitable. If the
>traffic source is relatively smooth the linear calculation may be wasteful, and if the
>source is very bursty it may be insufficient. It really depends on the situation.
>We do know that even smooth traffic gets to be self similar as it competes with
>other flows, so the distance from the source may also be a factor. There is
>no simple answer.
>
> Brian
>
> > With respect to rate Limiting, the burst size allows the provider to specify the tolerance level against
> > traffic burst of a particular 'subscrber'. Given this, I tend to believe the burst size parameter should
> > only adjust along with the subscriber traffic profile as oppose to the overall (presumable shared)
> > physical link (size). So typically I think it would be reasonable to increase the burst size if the BW
> > allocated to the corresponding subscriber increases. However, I am not sure if the linear model as
> > you use in your example a proper one. This all depends on, again, the subscriber traffic profile.
> >
> > - jay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: diffserv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:diffserv-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Geevarghese John
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:07 AM
> > To: diffserv@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Diffserv] Doubt regarding "Packet Burst"
> >
> > Can Someone help me on this doubt ..
> >
> > Sorry if this is not the correct mailingin list for the same ...
> >
> > Questions :
> >
> > Consider a rate limit scheme say "Credit based " support X Kbits over 100 MB links.
> >
> > When the link is changed to 1000 MB is it expected to change the expected
> >
> > burst size to 10 * X Kb
> >
> > What is the rule dictating Burst definition over large pipe networks ..?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
>
>_______________________________________________
>Diffserv-interest mailing list
>Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 16 16:41:08 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22443 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA29582; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA29553 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchsrv2.cosinecom.com (proxy79.cosinecom.com [63.88.104.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22434 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchsrv2.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:58:37 -0700 Message-ID: <69BCCDDC980B4641BFC908D7BF95F18410A7F1@exchsrv-eng> From: Anoop Ghanwani To: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:58:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C125BC.4B5EFC00" Subject: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C125BC.4B5EFC00 Content-Type: text/plain When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is it valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one policer? For instance, a packet which gets classified as being part of a microflow may have a policer associated with it. At the same time, it may be desirable to police the aggregate traffic from the interface that this packet came in on. Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected that a packet will hit at most one policer on ingress? Thanks, -Anoop ############################################################################ ########################## This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this email. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. ############################################################################ ########################## ------_=_NextPart_001_01C125BC.4B5EFC00 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable packet classification and policing

When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is = it
valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one = policer? 

For instance, a packet which gets classified as being = part
of a microflow may have a policer associated with = it.  At
the same time, it may be desirable to police the = aggregate
traffic from the interface that this packet came in = on.

Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected = that
a packet will hit at most one policer on = ingress?

Thanks,
-Anoop
###############################################################= ####################################### This email communication may = contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of = the intended recipients identified above.  If you are not the = intended recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, = distribute, copy or print this email. If you have received this = communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply = email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. = ########################################################################= ##############################

------_=_NextPart_001_01C125BC.4B5EFC00-- _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 16 16:48:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22619 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA29796; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA29760 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (h157s242a129n47.user.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.157]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22615 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (zcars04f.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f7GKmTp14058 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108162048.f7GKmTp14058@zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com> Received: from zcard00m.ca.nortel.com by zcars04f.ca.nortel.com; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:15 -0400 Received: from zcard00b.ca.nortel.com ([47.128.208.105]) by zcard00m.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id Q5Y46PS0; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:15 -0400 Received: from wcars13p (wcars13p.ca.nortel.com [47.14.113.46]) by zcard00b.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id PLPJG6Z4; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:48:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Jeff Norman" Reply-To: "Jeff Norman" Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing To: Anoop Ghanwani cc: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" X-Mailer: Rosa 3.0 X-Rosa-Trace: jnorman@wcars13p <47.14.113.46> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-ID: X-Orig: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id QAA29762 Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Anoop, Although not part of a standard, I don't think there is anything preventing anyone from allowing packets from going through more than one policer. Actually the example you gave is the most common example known IMHO of using two policiers for IP packets, one to control the microflow feeding conforming packets into a BA policer. --Jeff In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes: > > >When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is it >valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one policer? > >For instance, a packet which gets classified as being part >of a microflow may have a policer associated with it. At >the same time, it may be desirable to police the aggregate >traffic from the interface that this packet came in on. > >Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected that >a packet will hit at most one policer on ingress? > >Thanks, >-Anoop >######################################################################## >############################## This email communication may contain >CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the >intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended >recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, >copy or print this email. If you have received this communication in >error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the >communication and destroy all copies. >######################################################################## >############################## > > > [Part 2, Text/html 1.7KB] > [Not Shown. Use the attachment viewer to view this part] > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 18:53:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16691 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20265; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20233 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchsrv2.cosinecom.com (proxy141.cosinecom.com [63.88.104.141]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16671 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchsrv2.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:52:41 -0700 Message-ID: <69BCCDDC980B4641BFC908D7BF95F18410A801@exchsrv-eng> From: Anoop Ghanwani To: "'Jeff Norman'" Cc: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:52:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1276F.54A531D0" Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1276F.54A531D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jeff, Thanks for response. If a packet can go through multiple policers, then there is the following issue. Suppose the packet goes through two policers. One of them says it's conforming, the other says that it's out of profile. I assume then, that the packet would be treated as an out-of-profile packet. However, it has just used some some "good" credits from the policer that considered it conforming. Those are wasted credits and could well have been used by some other packet. How do you think that should be handled? -Anoop > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Norman [mailto:jnorman@nortelnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:48 PM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: 'diffserv-interest@ietf.org' > Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing > > > Anoop, > Although not part of a standard, I don't think there is anything > preventing anyone from allowing packets from going through more > than one policer. Actually the example you gave is the most > common example known IMHO of using two policiers for IP packets, > one to control the microflow feeding conforming packets into > a BA policer. > > --Jeff > > In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and > policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes: > > > > > > >When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is it > >valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one policer? > > > >For instance, a packet which gets classified as being part > >of a microflow may have a policer associated with it. At > >the same time, it may be desirable to police the aggregate > >traffic from the interface that this packet came in on. > > > >Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected that > >a packet will hit at most one policer on ingress? > > > >Thanks, > >-Anoop > ############################################################################ ########################## This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this email. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. ############################################################################ ########################## ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1276F.54A531D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and = policing

Jeff,

Thanks for response.

If a packet can go through multiple policers, = then
there is the following issue.  Suppose = the
packet goes through two policers.  One of them = says it's
conforming, the other says that it's out of = profile.  I
assume then, that the packet would be treated as an =
out-of-profile packet.  However, it has just = used some
some "good" credits from the policer that = considered it
conforming.  Those are wasted credits and could = well
have been used by some other packet.

How do you think that should be handled?

-Anoop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Norman [mailto:jnorman@nortelnetworks= .com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: 'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'
> Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] packet = classification and policing
>
>
> Anoop,
>   Although not part of a standard, I = don't think there is anything
> preventing anyone from allowing packets from = going through more
> than one policer.   Actually the = example you gave is the most
> common example known IMHO of using two = policiers for IP packets,
> one to control the microflow feeding conforming = packets into
> a BA policer.
>
> --Jeff
>
> In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet = classification and
> policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes:
>
> >
> >
> >When setting up packet classifiers and = policers, is it
> >valid to assume that a packet can hit more = than one policer? 
> >
> >For instance, a packet which gets = classified as being part
> >of a microflow may have a policer = associated with it.  At
> >the same time, it may be desirable to = police the aggregate
> >traffic from the interface that this packet = came in on.
> >
> >Does the above scenario make sense, or is = it expected that
> >a packet will hit at most one policer on = ingress?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Anoop
>
###############################################################= ####################################### This email communication may = contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of = the intended recipients identified above.  If you are not the = intended recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, = distribute, copy or print this email. If you have received this = communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply = email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. = ########################################################################= ##############################

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1276F.54A531D0-- _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 19:22:01 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17023 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA20804; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA20774 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (h157s242a129n47.user.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.157]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16932 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (zcars04f.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f7HNFcp17531 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108172315.f7HNFcp17531@zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com> Received: from zcard00m.ca.nortel.com by zcars04f.ca.nortel.com; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:57 -0400 Received: from zcard00b.ca.nortel.com ([47.128.208.105]) by zcard00m.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id Q5Y403QV; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:58 -0400 Received: from wcars13p (wcars13p.ca.nortel.com [47.14.113.46]) by zcard00b.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id PLPJG7DY; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:15:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Jeff Norman" Reply-To: "Jeff Norman" Subject: RE: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing To: Anoop Ghanwani cc: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" X-Mailer: Rosa 3.0 X-Rosa-Trace: jnorman@wcars13p <47.14.113.46> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-ID: X-Orig: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id TAA20775 Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Anoop, You have a good point, but then it is obvious then that you cannot always guarantee the conforming rate for both policers when microflows are running above the conforming rate. The two policiers pretty much should be considered independent from each other. Much like a Layer 3 policer wouldn't influence a Layer 2 policer. The order of the policers can also be determined by the SLA, you might wish to re-order the policer, where the BA policer is first, then the microflow policer. I'm not aware of any implementations out there where one policer can influence the credit system of another policer, maybe someone out there is aware of something like that and can correct me. --Jeff In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes: > >Jeff, > >Thanks for response. > >If a packet can go through multiple policers, then >there is the following issue. Suppose the >packet goes through two policers. One of them says it's >conforming, the other says that it's out of profile. I >assume then, that the packet would be treated as an >out-of-profile packet. However, it has just used some >some "good" credits from the policer that considered it >conforming. Those are wasted credits and could well >have been used by some other packet. > >How do you think that should be handled? > >-Anoop > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Norman [ mailto:jnorman@nortelnetworks.com > ] >> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:48 PM >> To: Anoop Ghanwani >> Cc: 'diffserv-interest@ietf.org' >> Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing >> >> >> Anoop, >> Although not part of a standard, I don't think there is anything >> preventing anyone from allowing packets from going through more >> than one policer. Actually the example you gave is the most >> common example known IMHO of using two policiers for IP packets, >> one to control the microflow feeding conforming packets into >> a BA policer. >> >> --Jeff >> >> In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and >> policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes: >> >> > >> > >> >When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is it >> >valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one policer? >> > >> >For instance, a packet which gets classified as being part >> >of a microflow may have a policer associated with it. At >> >the same time, it may be desirable to police the aggregate >> >traffic from the interface that this packet came in on. >> > >> >Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected that >> >a packet will hit at most one policer on ingress? >> > >> >Thanks, >> >-Anoop >> >######################################################################## >############################## This email communication may contain >CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the >intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended >recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, >copy or print this email. If you have received this communication in >error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the >communication and destroy all copies. >######################################################################## >############################## > > > [Part 2, Text/html 4.4KB] > [Not Shown. Use the attachment viewer to view this part] > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 06:40:20 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09860 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA15352; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA15322 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yamato.ccrle.nec.de (yamato.ccrle.nec.de [195.37.70.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09841 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de ([192.168.156.1]) by yamato.ccrle.nec.de (8.11.3/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f7RAefI22220; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:40:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.102.79] (judiciary.heidelberg.ccrle.nec.de [192.168.102.83]) by citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 70FBFC2A7; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:28:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:47:15 +0200 From: Marcus Brunner To: Jaeyoung Kim Cc: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain Message-ID: <2484022569.998916435@[192.168.102.79]> In-Reply-To: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, DiffServ itself is scalable, however, don't forget the management/control systems (e.g., bandwidth bokers etc.). Depending on the architecture, the services you want to provide, and the number of customers you want to service, the mgt systems might be a bottleneck. Marcus --On Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:23 AM -0500 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't see why there would be a "proper" size. Diffserv is designed > to be scaleable, and I don't see any reason that deploying diffserv > would cause you to make an administrative domain bigger or smaller. > > Brian > > Jaeyoung Kim wrote: >> >> Hi, I have an practical question on DiffServ networks. >> If DiffServ technology is deployed in most of backbone networks, >> what is the proper network size of a single DiffServ domain? >> How many edge routers and core routers? >> >> Since I'm studying in monitoring DiffServ networks and I don't have >> experienced with the big backbone networks, I'd like to ask you out >> there about this information. >> >> I think I've heard some backbone networks have already deployed >> DiffServ technology. How big is your network size in terms of number >> of edge/core routers? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Sincerely, >> Jay Kim >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> ==== __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE >> TODAY !!! \ /\ / >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr >> http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer >> Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA >> > > _______________________________________________ > Diffserv-interest mailing list > Diffserv-interest@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest > -------------------------------------- Dr. Marcus Brunner Network Laboratories NEC Europe Ltd. E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ personal home page: http://www.brubers.org Adenauerplatz 6 D-69115 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129 Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155 _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 10:13:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19377 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21159; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21129 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-1.iastate.edu (mailhub-1.iastate.edu [129.186.140.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19225 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from striegel.iastate.edu (striegel.ee.iastate.edu [129.186.205.4]) by mailhub-1.iastate.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0) with ESMTP id f7REAJ8A010221 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:10:19 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010827090844.02498748@magico.mail.iastate.edu> X-Sender: magico@magico.mail.iastate.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:10:12 -0500 To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org From: Aaron D Striegel Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain In-Reply-To: <2484022569.998916435@[192.168.102.79]> References: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org I think Jaeyoung might have meant to inquire what a typical size was as opposed to a proper size in order to have a practical foundation for simulations. Aaron At 12:47 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Marcus Brunner wrote: >Yes, DiffServ itself is scalable, however, don't forget the management/control systems (e.g., bandwidth bokers etc.). Depending on the architecture, the services you want to provide, and the number of customers you want to service, the mgt systems might be a bottleneck. > >Marcus > >--On Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:23 AM -0500 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>I don't see why there would be a "proper" size. Diffserv is designed >>to be scaleable, and I don't see any reason that deploying diffserv >>would cause you to make an administrative domain bigger or smaller. >> >> Brian >> >>Jaeyoung Kim wrote: >>> >>>Hi, I have an practical question on DiffServ networks. >>>If DiffServ technology is deployed in most of backbone networks, >>>what is the proper network size of a single DiffServ domain? >>>How many edge routers and core routers? >>> >>>Since I'm studying in monitoring DiffServ networks and I don't have >>>experienced with the big backbone networks, I'd like to ask you out >>>there about this information. >>> >>>I think I've heard some backbone networks have already deployed >>>DiffServ technology. How big is your network size in terms of number >>>of edge/core routers? >>> >>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>>Jay Kim >>> >>>-- >>>======================================================================== >>>==== __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE >>> TODAY !!! \ /\ / >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr >>> http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer >>> Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Diffserv-interest mailing list >>Diffserv-interest@ietf.org >>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest > > > >-------------------------------------- >Dr. Marcus Brunner >Network Laboratories >NEC Europe Ltd. > >E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de >WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ >personal home page: http://www.brubers.org > >Adenauerplatz 6 >D-69115 Heidelberg >Germany > >Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129 >Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155 > > >_______________________________________________ >Diffserv-interest mailing list >Diffserv-interest@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 11:04:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21023 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23279; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23252 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20939 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10246; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:00:43 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine08.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.48]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA45952; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:00:41 +0100 Message-ID: <3B8A6086.B66D47BC@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:00:22 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron D Striegel CC: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain References: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20010827090844.02498748@magico.mail.iastate.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If that is the question, I think the answer will be "as large as possible". I haven't seen any simulations yet that seemed to be large enough to capture the edge-to-edge behaviour of a real network (tens or hundreds of border routers and thousands of clients). Brian Aaron D Striegel wrote: > > I think Jaeyoung might have meant to inquire what a typical size was as opposed to a proper size in order to have a practical foundation for simulations. > > Aaron > > At 12:47 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Marcus Brunner wrote: > >Yes, DiffServ itself is scalable, however, don't forget the management/control systems (e.g., bandwidth bokers etc.). Depending on the architecture, the services you want to provide, and the number of customers you want to service, the mgt systems might be a bottleneck. > > > >Marcus > > > >--On Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:23 AM -0500 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >>I don't see why there would be a "proper" size. Diffserv is designed > >>to be scaleable, and I don't see any reason that deploying diffserv > >>would cause you to make an administrative domain bigger or smaller. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >>Jaeyoung Kim wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi, I have an practical question on DiffServ networks. > >>>If DiffServ technology is deployed in most of backbone networks, > >>>what is the proper network size of a single DiffServ domain? > >>>How many edge routers and core routers? > >>> > >>>Since I'm studying in monitoring DiffServ networks and I don't have > >>>experienced with the big backbone networks, I'd like to ask you out > >>>there about this information. > >>> > >>>I think I've heard some backbone networks have already deployed > >>>DiffServ technology. How big is your network size in terms of number > >>>of edge/core routers? > >>> > >>>Thanks in advance. > >>> > >>>Sincerely, > >>>Jay Kim > >>> > >>>-- > >>>======================================================================== > >>>==== __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE > >>> TODAY !!! \ /\ / > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr > >>> http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer > >>> Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Diffserv-interest mailing list > >>Diffserv-interest@ietf.org > >>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------- > >Dr. Marcus Brunner > >Network Laboratories > >NEC Europe Ltd. > > > >E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de > >WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ > >personal home page: http://www.brubers.org > > > >Adenauerplatz 6 > >D-69115 Heidelberg > >Germany > > > >Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129 > >Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155 > > > > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 12:23:19 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23483 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25961; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25932 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enisei.postech.ac.kr ([141.223.82.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23345 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jay@localhost) by enisei.postech.ac.kr (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f7RGLQr15418 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:21:26 +0900 (KST) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:21:26 +0900 From: Jaeyoung Kim To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain Message-ID: <20010828012126.A15380@enisei.postech.ac.kr> References: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> <2484022569.998916435@[192.168.102.79]> <5.1.0.14.2.20010827090844.02498748@magico.mail.iastate.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010827090844.02498748@magico.mail.iastate.edu>; from adstrieg@iastate.edu on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:10:12AM -0500 Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:10:12AM -0500, Aaron D Striegel wrote: > I think Jaeyoung might have meant to inquire what a typical size was > as opposed to a proper size in order to have a practical foundation for > simulations. > > Aaron > > At 12:47 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Marcus Brunner wrote: > >Yes, DiffServ itself is scalable, however, don't forget the > management/control systems (e.g., bandwidth bokers etc.). Depending on the > architecture, the services you want to provide, and the number of customers > you want to service, the mgt systems might be a bottleneck. > > > >Marcus Thank you, Aaron and Marcus, for clarifying what I meant in my previous question. Theoretically, Mr. Carpenter's comment is correct. Absolutely I agree on that DiffServ is scalable. However, when it comes to managing DiffServ networks, it is good to have information in advance on how big the network of concern is. Although there is no theoretical limitation on the size of DiffServ domain, my intuition is saying that a practical size of one DiffServ domain will not be over a size of 50 routers. Besides, the number of edge routers might be less than 10 or 15. This estimation is important when devising simulation scenarios which are as realistic as possible. I think it is helpful if I know the actual size of network domains of some big backbone network providers. Anybody? Anyway, thank you for your valuable comments. Sincerely, Jay Kim -- ============================================================================ __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE TODAY !!! \ /\ / ------------------------------------------------------------------- /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 12:52:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24287 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26747; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26712 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24262 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11244; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:52:03 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine08.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.48]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA45960; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:52:04 +0100 Message-ID: <3B8A7A06.9131BCAE@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:49:10 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jaeyoung Kim CC: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] size of a DiffServ domain References: <3B79428A.CE3B158D@hursley.ibm.com> <2484022569.998916435@[192.168.102.79]> <5.1.0.14.2.20010827090844.02498748@magico.mail.iastate.edu> <20010828012126.A15380@enisei.postech.ac.kr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jaeyoung Kim wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:10:12AM -0500, Aaron D Striegel wrote: > > I think Jaeyoung might have meant to inquire what a typical size was > > as opposed to a proper size in order to have a practical foundation for > > simulations. > > > > Aaron > > > > At 12:47 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Marcus Brunner wrote: > > >Yes, DiffServ itself is scalable, however, don't forget the > > management/control systems (e.g., bandwidth bokers etc.). Depending on the > > architecture, the services you want to provide, and the number of customers > > you want to service, the mgt systems might be a bottleneck. > > > > > >Marcus > > Thank you, Aaron and Marcus, for clarifying what I meant in my previous > question. Theoretically, Mr. Carpenter's comment is correct. Absolutely > I agree on that DiffServ is scalable. > > However, when it comes to managing DiffServ networks, it is good to have > information in advance on how big the network of concern is. Although > there is no theoretical limitation on the size of DiffServ domain, my > intuition is saying that a practical size of one DiffServ domain will not > be over a size of 50 routers. Besides, the number of edge routers might > be less than 10 or 15. These numbers seem low to me. 50 routers is not even a large sized campus network, let alone a backbone. > > This estimation is important when devising simulation scenarios which > are as realistic as possible. Indeed. It would be very interesting to know the size-dependency as well - do the statistics look different as the network gets bigger? Brian > > I think it is helpful if I know the actual size of network domains of > some big backbone network providers. Anybody? > > Anyway, thank you for your valuable comments. > > Sincerely, > Jay Kim > > -- > ============================================================================ > __/\__ ** Remember Yesterday, Dream about Tomorrow, but ... LIVE TODAY !!! > \ /\ / ------------------------------------------------------------------- > /_\/_\ ** jay@postech.ac.kr http://home.postech.ac.kr/~jay > \/ ** Jaeyoung Kim Computer Science & Engineering, POSTECH, KOREA > > _______________________________________________ > Diffserv-interest mailing list > Diffserv-interest@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org "We shall need a number of efficient librarian types to keep us in order." - Alan Turing, 1947. _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 30 11:03:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19091 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00363; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00330 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from malmo.trab.se (malmo.trab.se [131.115.48.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19080 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trab-hermes.haninge.trab.se (trab-hermes.haninge.trab.se [131.115.158.15]) by malmo.trab.se (8.10.1/TRAB-primary-2) with ESMTP id f7UF25j15965 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:02:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: by trab-hermes.haninge.trab.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:03:51 +0200 Message-ID: <778DFE9B4E3BD111A74E08002BA3DC0D03F390BA@trab-hermes.haninge.trab.se> From: John Tillberg To: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:03:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Subject: [Diffserv-interest] DiffServ over ATM Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Hello DiffServers! I'm currently doing some simulations (using Opnet) of IP over ATM where I use WFQ to differentiate between two separate traffic classes on a network with low bandwidth links (2 Mbps). It appears that the WFQ mechanism doesn't have any significant impact on the performance of the network. No matter how I tune the weights, or even if I overload some of the links, I get almost zero delay for both of my queues. However I do get delay on the ATM layer (and I am aware of that I have to map my IP QoS classes onto proper ATM QoS classes). I presume this is because the forwarding speed on the IP layer is much higher than the bandwidth of the network. Hence every (conforming) incoming packet will receive service on the IP layer (i.e. sent down to the lower layers) right away even if there is a state of congestion on the ATM layer. Have I misunderstood the matter? If not: Is this the same case for DiffServ? Does the effect of the IP-packet scheduler get "disabled" in a similar manner when you run DiffServ over ATM? Yours Sincerely John Tillberg ********************************************************************* John Tillberg Telia Research AB Phone: +46 8-713 82 07 Wireless Solutions Fax: +46 8-713 81 49 Vitsandsgatan 9 Mobile: +46 702-43 43 90 SE-123 86 Farsta Email: John.E.Tillberg@telia.se Sweden ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 30 11:53:46 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20135 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:53:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01486; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01455 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (h157s242a129n47.user.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.157]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20075 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04e.ca.nortel.com (zcars04e.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f7UFq8p24857 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108301552.f7UFq8p24857@zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com> Received: from zcard00m.ca.nortel.com by zcars04e.ca.nortel.com; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:52:15 -0400 Received: from zcard00b.ca.nortel.com ([47.128.208.105]) by zcard00m.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id R8G7NPMM; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:52:07 -0400 Received: from wcars13p (wcars13p.ca.nortel.com [47.14.113.46]) by zcard00b.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id PLPJG0A2; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:52:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:52:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Jeff Norman" Reply-To: "Jeff Norman" Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] DiffServ over ATM To: John Tillberg cc: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" X-Mailer: Rosa 3.0 X-Rosa-Trace: jnorman@wcars13p <47.14.113.46> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-ID: X-Orig: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id LAA01456 Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, I know others may disagree or agree with me, but IMHO, queuing on multiple queues based on IP QoS/CoS/DiffServ and then queuing on another set of multiple queues based on ATM service categories is somewhat redundant. Typically it's one or the other, or if both do exist then the ATM queues should be applying back-pressure onto the IP queues such that packets can get differentiated and conditioned by the IP queues as well. It looks like to me in your situation, the back-pressure isn't happening. Best Regards, --Jeff In message "[Diffserv-interest] DiffServ over ATM", John Tillberg writes: >Hello DiffServers! >I'm currently doing some simulations (using Opnet) of IP over ATM where I >use WFQ to differentiate between two separate traffic classes on a network >with low bandwidth links (2 Mbps). It appears that the WFQ mechanism doesn't >have any significant impact on the performance of the network. No matter how >I tune the weights, or even if I overload some of the links, I get almost >zero delay for both of my queues. However I do get delay on the ATM layer >(and I am aware of that I have to map my IP QoS classes onto proper ATM QoS >classes). I presume this is because the forwarding speed on the IP layer is >much higher than the bandwidth of the network. Hence every (conforming) >incoming packet will receive service on the IP layer (i.e. sent down to the >lower layers) right away even if there is a state of congestion on the ATM >layer. Have I misunderstood the matter? If not: Is this the same case for >DiffServ? Does the effect of the IP-packet scheduler get "disabled" in a >similar manner when you run DiffServ over ATM? >Yours Sincerely > >John Tillberg > >********************************************************************* >John Tillberg >Telia Research AB Phone: +46 8-713 82 07 >Wireless Solutions Fax: +46 8-713 81 49 >Vitsandsgatan 9 Mobile: +46 702-43 43 90 >SE-123 86 Farsta Email: John.E.Tillberg@telia.se >Sweden > >******************************************************************** > > >_______________________________________________ >Diffserv-interest mailing list >Diffserv-interest@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest > _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest From diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 30 14:41:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24914 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:41:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06562; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06532 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24847 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10036; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:36:20 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine03.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.43]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23800; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:36:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3B8E86CE.7B25A571@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:32:46 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Norman CC: John Tillberg , "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] DiffServ over ATM References: <200108301552.f7UFq8p24857@zcars0m9.ca.nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with Jeff. The intent of diffserv is make it unnecessary to mess around with parallel ATM VCs and the like - diffserv shares a single pipe among multiple traffic classes. If each diffserv queue has its own VC, diffserv is probably a no-op. Also, it's no surprise that IP forwarding is not a bottleneck on such slow links. Now you know why some of us think that running ATM over wireless is really, really pointless. Brian Jeff Norman wrote: > > John, > I know others may disagree or agree with me, but IMHO, queuing on > multiple queues based on IP QoS/CoS/DiffServ and then queuing on > another set of multiple queues based on ATM service categories is > somewhat redundant. > > Typically it's one or the other, or if both do exist then the ATM queues > should be applying back-pressure onto the IP queues such that packets > can get differentiated and conditioned by the IP queues as well. > > It looks like to me in your situation, the back-pressure isn't happening. > > Best Regards, > --Jeff > > In message "[Diffserv-interest] DiffServ over ATM", John Tillberg writes: > > >Hello DiffServers! > >I'm currently doing some simulations (using Opnet) of IP over ATM where I > >use WFQ to differentiate between two separate traffic classes on a network > >with low bandwidth links (2 Mbps). It appears that the WFQ mechanism doesn't > >have any significant impact on the performance of the network. No matter how > >I tune the weights, or even if I overload some of the links, I get almost > >zero delay for both of my queues. However I do get delay on the ATM layer > >(and I am aware of that I have to map my IP QoS classes onto proper ATM QoS > >classes). I presume this is because the forwarding speed on the IP layer is > >much higher than the bandwidth of the network. Hence every (conforming) > >incoming packet will receive service on the IP layer (i.e. sent down to the > >lower layers) right away even if there is a state of congestion on the ATM > >layer. Have I misunderstood the matter? If not: Is this the same case for > >DiffServ? Does the effect of the IP-packet scheduler get "disabled" in a > >similar manner when you run DiffServ over ATM? > >Yours Sincerely > > > >John Tillberg > > > >********************************************************************* > >John Tillberg > >Telia Research AB Phone: +46 8-713 82 07 > >Wireless Solutions Fax: +46 8-713 81 49 > >Vitsandsgatan 9 Mobile: +46 702-43 43 90 > >SE-123 86 Farsta Email: John.E.Tillberg@telia.se > >Sweden _______________________________________________ Diffserv-interest mailing list Diffserv-interest@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest