Subject: [question] RSVP over IP Tunnels

From: Alper Demir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 05:00:08 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,
                                                                  
[Page 3] below lines say that:

2. The (logical) link may be able to promise that some overall level of   
resources is available to carry traffic, but not to allocate resources     
specifically to individual data flows.

I think It would be much more generic if the logical link also may be able
to promise some partition of overall level of resources to allocate
specifically to individual data flows. Also, this idea can be extended    
recursively (allocating resources over already allocated resources). As
there is "tunnel management interface", it also can handle this kind of
dynamic reservations.

Any comments?

Alper K. Demir, Ph.D. Student
ISI/University of Southen California
Computer Science Department

---

From: Andreas Terzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT)

> there is "tunnel management interface", it also can handle this kind of
Alper,

You quoted item #2 on the list that talks about the possible tunnel
types. Here is the whole list:

"A tunnel, and in fact any sort of link, may participate in an RSVP-
aware network in one of three ways, depending on the capabilities of
the equipment from which the tunnel is constructed and the desires of
the operator.

1. The (logical) link may not support resource reservation or QoS
   control at all. This is a best-effort link. We refer to this as
   a best-effort or type 1 tunnel in this note.
2. The (logical) link may be able to promise that some overall
   level of resources is available to carry traffic, but not to
   allocate resources specifically to individual data flows.  A
   configured resource allocation over a tunnel is an example of
   this.  We refer to this case as a type 2 tunnel in this note.
3. The (logical) link may be able to make reservations for
   individual end-to-end data flows.  We refer to this case as a
   type 3 tunnel. Note that the key feature that distinguishes type
   3 tunnels from type 2 tunnels is that in the type 3 tunnel new
   tunnel reservations are created and torn down dynamically as
   end-to-end reservations come and go."

So it's not that RSVP Tunnels do not support logical links that
can provide reservations for individual flows but that there might
be links that cannot that in the first place. 

regards,

-andreas