Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Possible compromise between EFRESOLVE and draft-ch arny

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:57:56 -0500

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Plugging back in the 4 megabits / second EF input rate and 
> the 40 gigabits 
> / second output wire rate, and the alternate packet 
> scheduling, we see that
>      S = 6.4
> 
> So, can we stop saying that we can not calculate S or that 
> all reasonable 
> schedulers give large S.

Maybe this controversy would be resolved if we define two, rather than one,
EF behaviors?

One EF class minimizes latency while keeping jitter bounded. This is what
you have today with EFRESOLVE, and would be appropriate, for example, for
interactive voice links.

The second EF class minimizes jitter exclusively, which would be appropriate
for such services as non-real-time video distribution (e.g. TV over
Internet).

Defining these two classes would make it plain that large S is not
necessarily acceptable, but is an option that might work in real-world
applications of EF.

Bert

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html

---

From: demir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:35:03 -0800 (PST)

> necessarily acceptable, but is an option that might work in real-world

Why do we need "two classes" where we have a "superclass" and where we
could "derive" "sub-classes" unless "redundancy" is "okay"? PDBs can
"derive" "sub-classes".

Alper K. Demir