Subject: RE: [Diffserv] RE: Yesterday's EF discussion

From: Jon Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:06:59 -0500

John,

> At 05:02 PM 12/15/2000 -0500, Fulu Li wrote: 
> >
> > Did you miss this email? 
> >      
> >http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working 
> groups/diffserv/current/msg02677.html 
> 
> No, I did not miss it.

And? you just didn't feel like responding to it?

> I am familiar with how Cisco supports the deployment of EF.
> I am familiar with the diffserv testbed in Internet-2.
> I do not see any dependence on the particular (mis)interprestation
> of of Van's intended bound on delay variance in either.

Its funny, I am also familiar with those things as well, and having actually
heard Van explain the operation of the BANDWIDTH brokers in Internet2 I do
see the dependence on the rate bound. But you know something, it doesn't
really matter what Van thinks since the RFC is a product of the WG and not
his personal property. If you wish I can start posting references to all the
Internet2 project documentation that specifies the BANDWIDTH broker
operation and the SLA guarantees in terms of RATES and not in terms of
jitter, would you like me to do that? Or perhaps could we agree that low
jitter is a by-product of a tight rate guarantee instead of continuing to
pretend that somehow the words "departure rate of the aggregate" actually
mean "jitter bound of the individual packets".

> My question seeks implementations that require a rate bound.

I answered that question in my message

http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/msg02696.h
tml

but again for some reason you did not respond to it.

jon

_______________________________________________
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: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Dec 2000 14:20:32 -0500

Jon Bennett <[email-masked]> writes:

> Its funny, I am also familiar with those things as well, and having
> actually heard Van explain the operation of the BANDWIDTH brokers in
> Internet2 I do see the dependence on the rate bound. But you know
> something, it doesn't really matter what Van thinks since the RFC is
> a product of the WG and not his personal property. If you wish I can
> start posting references to all the Internet2 project documentation
> that specifies the BANDWIDTH broker operation and the SLA guarantees
> in terms of RATES and not in terms of jitter, would you like me to
> do that?

Jon,

Internet2 implementation experience probably should not influence the
standartization process.  But in case there's any interest in it, it's
our understanding of EF that you provide all of bandwidth, minimal
jitter (but not necessarily bounded in a formal way by a constant user
can easily learn), and virtually no loss.

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov <[email-masked]>	Internet Engineer, Internet2

Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on
society.                                             -- Mark Twain

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:13:04 -0600

Somebody wrote:

>... But you know something, it doesn't
> his personal property. 

I observe that it matters what *each* contributor to the debate thinks;
the WG consensus is supposed to be the result of logical analysis
of everybody's contribution. There have been a number of rather
personal remarks (both spoken and typed) in the discussion - I only
quote the one above because it came across my screen this minute - and 
I would ask everybody to refrain from such remarks.

Regards

   Brian Carpenter
   diffserv co-chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:18:16 -0600

stanislav shalunov wrote:
...
> standartization process.  

But implementation experience is the most precious form of input we can
have. Why do you think the i2 experience is not useful? Should we rather
look at the EMERGE experience or the TF-TANT experience? What other
testbeds should we look at?

   Brian