Subject: [NSIS] Questions on QSPEC draft-11

From: Bernd Schloer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:21 +0200

Hi,

the <Traffic> Parameter has a variable length (1 or 5 Bytes).
>From my point of view it would be better to seperate Bandwidth
and Token Bucket. It's easier to implement and the objects
can be identified by the ID.

<Path Jitter> Parameter has a length of 3 Bytes, but 4 integers
are listed below the header.

What do the values 0..7 in the <DSTE Class Type> field of
<QoS Class> stand for? Is there a value for Best Effort or high
priority?

<Preemption Prio> of <Priority>: higher values represent higher
priority. Is there a fixed value for Best Effort?

<Defending Prio>, do here also higher values represent higher
priority? Any values for best effort?

If I want to distinguish between 3 priority levels (best effort,
normal and high priority) where are the limits for each level
in <DSTE Class Type>, <Preemption Prio> and <Defending Prio>?

Bernd

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

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:49 -0500

Bernd,

See below. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernd Schloer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [NSIS] Questions on QSPEC draft-11
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >From my point of view it would be better to separate Bandwidth

We had the same suggestion from Christian Dickmann is his post at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg06658.html.  It
looks like a good change to make.
 
> are listed below the header.

Good catch.
 
> <QoS Class> stand for? Is there a value for Best Effort or high

These values would be defined within the DSTE context; there is no fixed
mapping, see RFC 4124 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4124.txt?number=4124.
 
> priority. Is there a fixed value for Best Effort?

No, these take on relative values.  See the normative RFC 3181
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3181.txt?number=3181.
 
> priority? Any values for best effort?

No, these take on relative values.  See the normative RFC 3181
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3181.txt?number=3181.
 
> in <DSTE Class Type>, <Preemption Prio> and <Defending Prio>?

Not sure I understand the question.  As above, there is no fixed mapping
for any of these parameters.

See the normative RFCs for details, e.g., as stated in RFC 4124
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4124.txt?number=4124 for DSTE:
"DSTE LSRs MUST allow configuration of a TE-Class mapping whereby the
Class-Type and preemption level are configured for each of (up to) 8
TE-Classes... A TE-class consists of i. a Class-Type and ii. a
preemption priority allowed for that Class-Type.  This means that an LSP
transporting a Traffic Trunk from that Class-Type can use that
preemption priority as the setup priority, the holding priority, or
both."

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: Bernd Schloer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:44:42 +0200

Hi Jerry,

thanks for your answer. I was hoping there were fixed values. I think
the best is to handle <DSTE Class Type>, <Preemption Prio> and 
<Defending Prio> as normal priority, ignoring that higher values
represent higher priority, when processing with a QOSM CLS.

Bernd