Subject: Re: question: DiffServ versus RSVP

From: jie yang ee stnt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:07:15 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with RSVP is a signaling protocol, But I can't agree that
Diffserv doesn't need RSVP. Actually at edge router, it absolutely needs
a signaling protocol. RSVP maybe a good choice. 
----- Begin Included Message -----

---

From: Youhao Jing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:18:07 -0700 (PDT)

>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, jie yang ee stnt wrote:
>
> 

DiffServ is intented to provide edge-to-edge QoS, not end-to-end as RSVP
does. There has been discussions on integrating RSVP and
DiffServ/MPLS to achieve end-to-end QoS, either through new extensions or
other external elements and mechanisms. Here are the pointers:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/slides/rsvp-bernet-slides-98aug/
QoS protocols and architecture, white paper at http://www.qosforum.com/
tech_resources.htm

-Youhao

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:26:22 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Youhao Jing wrote:

> does.

RSVP does not provide end-to-end QoS. It's a signalling protocol, not
an enabling mechanism.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Youhao Jing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:43:38 -0700 (PDT)

> RSVP does not provide end-to-end QoS. It's a signalling protocol, not

Agreed. What I meant was RSVP/IntServ.

-Youhao