Pete Heist <petehe...@gmail.com> writes:

>> On Feb 19, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote:
>> 
>> Pete Heist <petehe...@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I liked the simplicity of RFC 795 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc795) from 
>>> 1981 :) so, mostly in jest, I’ll propose a new system, call it "Deferential 
>>> Services", summed up by this:
>>> 
>>> - Bits 0-2: Anti-precedence: 000 = normal, 111 = least important
>>> - Bit 3: 0 = normal delay, 1 = high delay ok
>>> - Bit 4: 0 = normal reliability, 1 = low reliability ok
>>> - Bit 5: Always 1, identifies deferential services, rarely used for 
>>> DiffServ in practice, I think
>>> - Bits 6-7 ECN
>>> 
>>> Bit 5 will usually be 0 so deferential services won’t be used, and if
>>> it happens to be 1 for the wrong reason, 000 in bits 0-2 is still best
>>> effort so it won’t end up that bad in most cases. And with that I wipe
>>> my hands and slip out the side exit… :)
>> 
>> Don't forget RFC3514 compliance ;)
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt
>
> :)
>
> Humor aside, I do think a system based on voluntary de-prioritization
> would be better than what we have today. Although, any system which is
> universally respected also holds the potential for abuse, which is
> probably why DiffServ ended up like it did in both design and
> practice.

Sure, voluntary de-prioritisation would be awesome (people have tried
with thinks like LEDBAT); but the people designing DiffServ are more in
the "we must prioritise our (but no one else's) VoIP services" :/

-Toke

_______________________________________________
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Reply via email to