Subject: Re: Flow Label

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:23:50 -0500 (EST)

>    Yes, and it almost always means "let's ignore
>    admission control" too.

yes, and that will be a real problem wherever the level of priority
traffic approaches the size of the links (which could easily happen
if video traffic gets prioritized)

Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:55:30 -0800 (PST)

> if video traffic gets prioritized)

   And??

   The hard part of all of this is that e2e 
   signaling for QoS is a genuine Hard Problem.
   Here you seem to acknowledge that it's needed,
   but you also seem to be saying that you can
   ignore if you drink the class based QoS Kool
   Aide.

		Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:55:30 -0800 (PST)

And??

		Mike

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:03:11 -0800

> ignore if you drink the class based QoS Kool

scott's subtle that way.  notice he did not actually say he believed
mr jones.  the nice thing about qos is that, when the links become
overbooked as in the example, qos just makes more bandwidth.

randy