Subject: RE: [NSIS] Re: qos-nslp-00

From: "McDonald, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:17:47 +0100

Hi Cheng,

Cheng Hong wrote:
> You are right that most of the implementations would choose to work
> only on the output interface, since it's simpler. But, due to other
> considerations, e.g. efficiency, etc, an implementation could choose
> to do it in a different way. For example, one of the popular QoS
> implementations ALTQ
> (http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/kjc/software.html#ALTQ )
> actually has the traffic conditioner on the ingress interface in its
> DiffServ module.  
> 
> Since the QoS-NSLP is meant to be agnostic to QoS models, I would
> prefer the logical model also be neutral. Maybe some text for
> clarification is necessary in the section. Or, could we do something
> like the RFC2205, where the routing process is put at a position not
> implying the processing sequence?

I'm not sure how best to change the diagram without making it more confusing
(and hence less useful in general). One of the difficulties comes from
trying to show the signaling/data flows in a single summary picture.

I think the best thing is probably some clarifying text along the lines of:
This diagram shows an example implementation scenario where QoS conditioning
is performed on the output interface. However, this does not limit the
possible implementations. For example, in some cases traffic conditioning
may be performed on the incoming interface, or it may be split over the
input and output interfaces.

How does that sound. Does it capture all the key points?

Andrew

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:13:32 +0800

Hi Andrew,

Your proposed text is fine with me. It did clarify the issue, and we could
save some time for remaking the ASCII art:->

Best regards

Cheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> McDonald, Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:18 PM
> To: 'Cheng Hong'; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] Re: qos-nslp-00
>
>
> Hi Cheng,
>
> Cheng Hong wrote:

---

From: Paulo Mendes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:03 +0200

Hi Andrew,

I don't see why a description of a traffic conditioner has to be 
included in this draft, since its goal is to describe how QoS sessions 
should be signalled and not to how QoS should be implemented in each QNE 
(QoS models agnostic).  Furthermore, keeping figure 1 as it is leads to 
some confusion. For instance, why isn't a traffic shaper and a marker 
included in the traffic conditioner?
Therefore, it makes more sense to refer to traffic conditioning as a 
"black box". Probably it is enough to place a "black" traffic control 
box at each interface mentioning that the implementation of such boxes 
is dependent of the used QoS model.

Cheers,
Paulo

-- 
Paulo Mendes
DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Str. 312
80687 Munich, Germany
Tel. +49-89-56824-226
Fax. +49-89-56824-300
E-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.docomoeurolabs.de/