Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Assured Rate PDB

From: "Nabil Seddigh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:30:39 -0500 (EST)

Alper,

I think you are definitely extending the scope of VW beyond its
stated use in the VW PDB draft and the various presentations
by its authors.

The VW draft is replete with explicit statements regarding its use in
the context of point-to-point and circuit-replacment.  These are not
one-to-any scenarios within a domain. e.g. Figure 1 in the pdf version
(July
2000) of the VW draft depicts its use in a one-to-one scenario - 
single edge to single edge. 

The AR PDB OTOH is intended to facilitate a different kind of service -
one that can be one-to-one, one-to-any or one-to-few (within the
context of a domain). Since this is different for different PDBs, 
it needs to be stated explicitly in the draft. 

Nabil

>
>To me, VW PDB (also AR PDB because AR PDB "assumtion" leads that
>way) makes the PDB from any edge to any edge that is any-to-any. As a
>result, on-to-one, one-to-few, and one-to-any is supported by
>default. There is no need to talk about them at all unless you have a
>special case definition for a behavior aggregate such as classification
>actions are taken so that each individual behavior aggregate is from
one
>ingress to one egress. Please, let me know if I am misinterpreting
>something.
>
>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: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:22 +0100

Nabil Seddigh wrote:
[..]
> it needs to be stated explicitly in the draft.

Nabil,

I agree that it needs to be stated. Shouldn't the scope (one-to-one,
one-to-any or one-to-few ) be mentioned as a parameter to the PDB?

Marcus