Subject: Re: controlled load overload

From: "andrew (a.j.) hollbach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 09:50:00 -0500

[email-masked] writes:

> but surely its easier than this....sureally the Internet should _only_
> provide controled load, and those that do RSVP get the guarantee plus
> drop service model, and those that don;t get the guarantee + delay service
> model (under congestion as defined for the proportion of the capacity
> allocated to each service class...)?
> 
> jon
>

Sorry, but I don't fully understand what you are proposing. Would you please
clarify and elaborate a bit?

Thx.. Andy

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 15:47:53 +0000

>clarify and elaborate a bit?
 
well, i am proposing something a bit extreme, but a weaker versio nof
it might be the following in order list...

default (no RSVP) service: controlled load, with delay for
non-conforming packets during overload (hmmm, what are the default leaky bucket
parameters? ok - could just do a monitoring based approach....)

minimal (RSVP) service: controlled load with drop (or tag for drop)
for non conforming packets during overload....

then the rest (predicetive, guaranteed etc....) may or may not be
feasible (depending whether yo ucan get a competing setr of providers
to export genuine delay figures without simply all asking for the
lions share of the delay or jitter budget...

obviously a simple refinement is to have 

controlled load with delay for packets overlimit
and 
controlled load with loss for packets overlimit

as two distinct  service classes, and create appropriate codepoints
and so on.....

 jon