Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Token bucket suggestion in Diffserv Model draft

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:42:26 -0800

Juha,

Just catching up on the token-bucket discussion:

Juha Heinanen wrote:

> Brian E Carpenter writes:
> 
>  > We've been round and round on this many times.
>  > Experienced implementors of IP routers tell us that
>  > the loose model is in widespread use (i.e. it is
>  > running code).
> 
> brian, could you tell me me whose router allows me to choose between
> positive and negative leaky buckets?  so far i haven't seen any.  i
> don't think that it a service to the router vendors or those who need to
> configure the boxes to introduce yet another option.
> 
> -- juha

I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone is considering positive vs. 
negative as a configuration option. I guess that, if you could buy one box that 
did positive-count from one vendor and one that did negative-count from another 
vendor (or even, heaven forbid, one of each from the same vendor - no, that 
could never happen :-)), then that could be considered as a purchaser's option 
but I certainly don't see anything that points to this being part of a 
management model (it's in the Appendix right now because people wanted to 
resurrect some of the background discussion - I'm inclined to prune it though 
since it is causing so many problems).

Andrew
(model draft editor)

_______________________________________________
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: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:53:03 -0800

In thinking about this one some more, one of Shahram's comments stands out in my 
mind: I wonder if, indeed, it *is* useful and/or necessary for a network 
operator designing an end-to-end service using Diffserv to know what type of 
token bucket conformance meters are being used by hops along the path.

If that were true then management models (and MIBs and PIBs and ....) probably 
ought to expose this detail of the meter, at least as a read-only parameter. 
Thoughts?

Andrew

---

From: "John Dullaert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:11:18 -0500

It does make a difference when trying to configure the network to meet certain restrictions
over short time intervals, such as were required in RFC 2598.

jcd

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:52:54 -0600

Hoever, I'm not sure this needs to be exposed in the MIB/PIB as a property.
The QOS management system is probably going to know enough about the routers
it is managing, without picking this information up dynamically.

  Brian