Subject: Re: FW: 802.1 user priority mapping

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:03:04 -0800

Bryan,

On your procedural point. I agree that .1 does not get to "approve"
mappings of internetwork layer services. However .1 does get to say how the
switches work, as you say. So I am arguing for ISSLL, and in ISSLL because
I am a participant in that activity, not to attach new semantics to the
bits which would require different processing in switches. I believe it
would be convenient and helpful for the deployment of this technology if
the ISSLL default recommendations coincided with the 802.1 defaults. The
latter did receive careful thought.

As/if we move to a world where SBM deployment is the norm rather than the
exception, i.e. the network administrator can make the simplifying
assumption that all requests for Controlled Load and Guaranteed Services
pass through the SBM admission control, these defaults will become less
important because the SBM protocol provides a means of signalling the
traffic class/user priority to be used for a given admitted flow.

Mick

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:21:49 -0500

>traffic class/user priority to be used for a given admitted flow.

Mick,

Not trying to put words in Bryan's mouth, but I think the point
here is that we (might) need to incorporate 802.1p functionality
into the diffserv semantics/functionality (whatever that might be),
in light of the fact that the world may choose *not* to do SBM.

And in this context, I think there is room for fruitful discussion.

- paul