Subject: [Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: New Work Proposal on L3 QoS Benchmarking]

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:53:53 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: New Work Proposal on L3 QoS Benchmarking
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:14:28 -0800
From: "John Dawson" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Kevin,

I did not see any placeholder for throughput related tests in the proposal.
 One thing that really makes me nervous about QOS is the expectations with
respect to packet loss rate.  Although forwarding rate tests should be able
to characterize how many packets per second a system can handle, I don't
subscribe to the concept that all protocols will run efficiently even in
the presence of high packet loss rates.

>From a QOS standpoint, I would like to know that I can reserve a
high-priority channel and get a certain amount of data through that channel
without loss (even though the rest of the network is under heavy load).

If we do not include any zero loss rate type tests, is the expectation that
all applications built on top of the proposed QOS model will function
equally well in the presence of arbritary loss?  

Will this effort try to put any hard numbers behind what can be considered
acceptable levels of jitter, delay, and loss for a defined "level of
service" (i.e. graded channel capacities)? 

or is QOS just another way of marketing relative (non-guaranteed) levels of
service that change drastically depending on the current system load?

John
========================================
At 08:16 PM 02/23/2000 -0500, Kevin Dubray wrote:
>A Last Call period on the proposal for the WG to undertake new work
>regarding L3 QoS Benchmarking will close on 24 Feb 00.
>
>See the BMWG archive for more info:
>
>      http://www.alvestrand.no/archives/bmwg/bmwg.0002
>