Subject: RE: [NSIS] RE: PACKET_CLASSIFIER in QSPEC

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:38:17 +0300

Hi all,

Just tipping one toe back into this thread:

>However, that doesn't change my concluding thought - in fact 
>it probably reinforces it, since I haven't seen any compelling 
>examples of why multiple packet classifiers are required.

I agree, I would like to see a more compelling reason for supporting 
multiple packet classifiers.  If you would model the end-to-end flow
traversing multiple QoS domains, wouldn't you still need to have some
notion of a classifier that would work along the entire path? I don't
quite see what a different packet classifier somewhere in the 
middle of the network would buy you.

I guess if you are aggregating multiple flows in the network, where you
would have multiple packet classifiers, you would need to use the
'looser'
packet classifier, but I think that could be a local policy decision.

Or am I misunderstanding things here?

John

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

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:50:46 +0200

Hi John

My point, is similar to the point that Hannes did in one of the first 
e-mails of this tread is that we do not need to signal the packet classifier 
information.

Typically each QoS model will have to use the information provided by GIST 
in the MRI to do that. Thus this is signaled by GIST and each QoS model is 
responsible of choosing the right MRI parameters for packet classification.

If a QoS model needs to use another type of packet classification, then it 
shoul use
local configuration for it, considering that the rules are related to 
parameters of the IP header.

Best regards,
georgios