Subject: Re: AW: [Diffserv] about the concern of a rate loss in the defini tion

From: Jon Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:00:43 -0400

Xiaoning,

>Please see the following:
>
>At the Link of P1:   |xxxxxA|Axxxxx|Axxxxx|....(A packets belong to EF
flow)
>At the Link of P2:   |xxxxxB|Bxxxxx|Bxxxxx|....(B packets belong to EF
flow)
>At the Link of P3:   |xxxxxC|Cxxxxx|Cxxxxx|....(B packets belong to EF
flow)
>
>At the Link of P4:   |xxxxxx|ABCBCA|ABCxxx|xxxxxx|
> 
>I think this is what an EF-capable scheduler SHOULD avoid to do, 

I suspect that there are probably a lot of people who think this is what an
EF
scheduler should do, not what it should avoid doing. In my opinion the EF
scheduler should be allowed to do anything between this example and your
other example where the packets are spaced out, but it seems to me
that you are talking about very different behavior than what most people
would envision for EF.

>which is not really contradictory to the DEF1 of your draft proposal, 
>because  the choice of d(j) <= F(j) + E is not unique. 

I don't understand what you mean by the "choice" not being unique,
could you please explain?

> (the question is only how can you say something is DEF1 compliant 
> by measurement).

Are you suggesting by this that you don't know how to perform a measurement
using DEF1? Or that you don't feel that measurement can be used to determine
compliance?

jon

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/