On 12/06/2013 10:22 AM, Robinson, Dave C (Dave) wrote: > Jim et al, > > I agree with your comments on Diffserv. I'd go further and > characterise Diffserv as a business tool whereas ECN and general AQMs > as network optimisation tools. By that I mean that Diffserv should be > used by an application to specify a business policy be it low latency > for VoIP / gaming or preferred forwarding for your video service. AQMs > can guess at the types of traffic. For example an isochronous flow of > short packets could well be VoIP which would benefit from expedited > forwarding. But it has to be an operator policy to decide between two > VoIP services. > > Same argument for bulk traffic from different video services. One can > be a partner traffic from your internal CDN nodes which you would like > to accelerate through your network. > > ECN is a good tools to use to tell sources the the network is becoming > overloaded and is kinder than dropping packets. But it cannot know the > business policy. Just help manage congestion.
1) it's also a non-business policy issue: I may want to provide low latency to a friend or child playing a game at my house, or provide poorer time/throughput guarantees to a web or ftp download. Yes, this indeed a niggle (;-)) 2) I'd be happier providing a metric to the network's management than an implementation. Let's assume I'm doing VOIP or something else small and low-latency to a known endpoint, and want to say for this socket, (I want = <100 milliseconds, I'm inducing load = 0.03 mbits/sec). The implementation can turn that into a DIFFSERV option, if it's supported, or something else if not. This, IMHO, deserves consideration, but not as part of this discussion. Thus "off topic". --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest [email protected] | -- Mark Twain (416) 223-8968
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
