Subject: [Diffserv] need for clear definition of "assurance" in EF

From: demir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:14:30 -0800 (PST)

In Introduction of EF PHB, the "assured bandwidth" phrase is used. I think
this is misleading and "inaccurate". In AF, assurance is "different levels
of forwarding assurances for IP packets received from a customer DS
domain". Where as, to me, in EF, "assured bandwidth" has different meaning  
("available"?) (you might say that "assured" bandwidth makes it
assured bandwidth. However "assured" forwarding in AF doesn't make it
assured forwarding (assuming "underprovisioned" and/or "traffic
conditioning" failure). 
I agree they are just "words". It would be nicer to make words clear to
understand.
I have already made my point on providing "assurance" level for EF if one
choses to use it (fundamental change :) However, it seems it's okay to
change EF's constraint from "rate" to "delay", "delay variance". What is
the limit of "expedited"? "no delay", "no delay variance" :) for a packet?
"philosophical" change is fine, but "fundamental" is not fine?

my 2 cents,

Alper K. Demir

_______________________________________________
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:15:52 -0600

I'm not sure whether you're referring to RFC 2598 or one of the recent 
drafts, but you are correct: it's very confusing to use the same word
as the A in AF. 

I don't think we have anything like consensus for changing from
a rate-based EF definition yet - hopefully we will clarify this by the
end of Tuesday's meeting.

  Brian

---

From: demir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:55:45 -0800 (PST)

Yes. I am refering to RFC 2598. 
I don't think that "rate-based EF definition" (actually, "assurance" level
for EF" with a "MAY" statement) would "hurt" EF PHB.

Alper K. Demir