Subject: AW: [arch-d] QoS Signaling Status and Support

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:14:42 +0200

Hi Pekka, 

> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> > My surprise stems from my own perception that Int-Serv proved
> > to be a very unsatisfactory experience for our IETF community.
> 
> You shouldn't be surprised -- the QoS community is in denial, and has 
> been for a long time.

I guess you can explain this in more detail.

> 
> The thinking seems to go like this: "IntServ using RSVP was not 
> succesful.. so the fault must have been at RSVP.  Let's design a 
> better version of RSVP!"

Well, it is not that easy.

Here are some major problems:

* The IETF wants to develop e2e solutions. Other organizations are
already happy if they get something accomplished for the wireless link
or for intra-domain environment only. 
This has an impact on the solution. 

I am not sure how large the interest in the inter-domain QoS approaches
are.  

* Many organizations that care really, really about QoS see it as their
job to develop their own QoS solution. They don't want to look at the
IETF. These organizations sometimes develop solutions where the end host
is not involved or where the intelligence is in the network (combined
with some other convenient assumptions). 

* Business model for QoS is complicated. This is a long discussion and
mostly outside the IETF. It is basically about "Do we need QoS at all or
is the Internet already good enough without any QoS mechanisms." The
answer will depend on the person you ask and on the application you are
considering. 

> > A few years back I started a thread on the ietf mailing list asking
> > about the current state of RSVP, and I received a lot of 
> feedback from
> > IETF participants about how valuable RSVP-TE was proving to 
> be for MPLS.
> 
> I remember that discussion because I remember criticizing 
> path-coupled 
> signalling approaches :-)

Fyi, the NSIS working group has spent some time also thinking about
path-decoupled approaches and there was a huge interest in this subject.
A number of presentations were given about this subject at past IETF
meetings (and not only in the NSIS WG; also at the DCPEL "mini-BoF"). 

I remember your mailing list discussion thread and we took your comments
serious; and not only your comments.

Finally, I have to state that many of the path-coupled vs.
path-decoupled signaling arguments differ only in a small detail if the
scope of the work is QoS signaling in the access network. 
 
Ciao
Hannes

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