Subject: Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP SIP REQ-6 to REQ-10

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:31:53 EDT

In a message dated 10/17/2002 4:25:14 PM W. Europe Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Addressing just the first part-
> 
> In my mind the independence of  indication and policy does not in any way
> inhibit me from naming my indications "low, medium, high".  But, at the same
> time, it does not PREVENT me from implementing a policy under which (at
> least under some circumstances), calls labeled "low" get better performance
> than calls labeled "high".  
> 
> (An example would be that calls labeled "high" get priority as long as the
> volume of "high priority calls" remains below a threshold.  Once the volume
> crosses that threshold, they get worse treatment.)
> 
> 

[MAP] Certainly, the treatment provided in any network element is subject to 
local control, but I would find it hard to believe that any customer of a 
priority service would accept a performance as you've described above, 
presuming that, by the last phrase, you meant "they get worse treatment than 
the lower priority calls". I certainly hope that we can figure out how to do 
better than that. I guess this would prompt me to suggest the following 
additional requirement if and when we start talking about requirements for 
treatments or procedures:

"If a priority value is intended to get better service, e.g., higher call 
setup probability, it must not be provided a worse service than lower 
priority calls no matter what the traffic situation is."

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:21 -0400

On Friday, Oct 18, 2002, at 10:31 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> "If a priority value is intended to get better service, e.g., higher 
> call setup probability, it must not be provided a worse service than 
> lower priority calls no matter what the traffic situation is."

This is roughly impossible to guarantee in a large production IP 
network.  This
might mean that folks really want to use the PSTN instead.  Trying to 
mandate the
above in these requirements would tend to mean that few (if any) ISPs 
would
agree to contract to provide the IEprep service.  That outcome seems to 
be
counter-productive.

So I oppose the above proposal.

Ran

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