Subject: RE: The problem with tagging packets

From: [email-masked] (Kilkki Kalevi NRC/Hki)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:06:00 +0200

11. Nov 1997 10:09 PM Juha Heinanen wrote:

>   No.  Dropping for one delay class should be based on whatever state
>   information is relevant to that class.  In some implementations, the
>   outcome may be as you indicate but in many (most?) it wont.  For
>   example, if I support delay differentiation through different queues,
>   then dropping in one queue is likely to depend on the current
>   occupancy of that queue and not necessarily of the occupancy of other
>   queues.
>
>i agree with roch here and in fact i have exchanged several email with
>kalevi about the issue.
>
>   In any case, I don't think these are things we need to specify as   
part
>   of the semantics definition as they are essentially implementation
>   dependent.
>
>and we too came to the above conclusion.
>
>-- juha

Yes, our conclusion was that. Yet, I still prefer a SERVICE model in   
which the drop preference level determines the drop preference of the   
packet, that means, independent of the delay class. If an implementation   
cannot meet this target, it is a shortcoming.

.. Kalevi

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:32:59 +0200

it is not question of implementation being able to do one way or the
oher.  it is the question in which mode an isp wants to run its service.

-- juha