Subject: RE: Congestion avoidance Re: [Ieprep] draft-ietf-ieprep-framework -02.txt

From: "Nguyen, An" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:41:00 -0500

While still on this QoS topic, is anyone aware of the ITU-T Y.1541 which
defines QoS parameters in the IP networks?

An Nguyen/NCS

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:28 PM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Congestion avoidance Re: [Ieprep]
draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-02.txt

At the very least, it would be helpful if drafts clearly separate the 
"here and now" from the "it might be nice to have (topic for future 
research)" and "this is unlikely to be feasible in the Internet as-is". 
The danger with requirements and similar work seems to be that this is 
taken as a license to require things that are extremely unlikely to 
happen in a time frame suitable for IETF output.

Since these documents are also meant for people outside the IETF, 
explicitly identifying things that are unlikely to be feasible 
short-term may be valuable.

(I would be curious what concrete QoS routing has been deployed, tested 
and discarded, given that none was ever really standardized in the IETF, 
as far as I can tell. RFC 2386 seems to be the only output of the QOSR 
working group that concluded in early 1999.)

Scott Bradner wrote:

> Henning sez:
>
> >While your view certainly represents the "traditional" Internet view and
> >current operational practice, one should not forget that there has been
> >a large body of more recent research work related to QoS routing.
>
>
> this brings up two questions to me
>
> 1/ how close is that research to being deployed in ISPs?
>
> and more importantally
>
> 2/ should this WG be talking about what the Internet can be expected
>    to be able to do now or in the immediate future (see 1st deliverable
>    in the WG charter) of speculate on what might be possible at some
>    point in the future?
>
> (my feeling, if its not clear, is that we should stick to the world
> of today and the near future)
>
> Scott

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

---

From: Sean Donelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 20:15:51 -0500 (EST)

> defines QoS parameters in the IP networks?

As the saying goes, the great thing about standards is there are so many
to choose from.

Yep, ITU-T Y.1541 has come up at the IP Performance Measurement WG's.  In
the 1990's ANSI ATIS/T1A1 also wrote several technical reports about what
Internet performance "should" be.  Remember just because you write a
standard doesn't mean anyone must (or will) follow it.

How many folks are familar with James Burton's book The Pentagon Wars?

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:28:32 -0500

> defines QoS parameters in the IP networks?

Irrelevant.  ITU does not have any role in defining IP;
that is an IETF function.

Stuff that is implemented in real IP products or networks will nearly
always be specified in an RFC.  A few things exist that aren't well
specified anyplace.

Ran