Subject: [Tsvwg] Comment on DiffServ Aggregation

From: "Bose, Pratik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:26:49 -0500

I had briefly discussed this with Kwok-Ho Chan after the minneapolis
tsvwg meeting and had promised to write an email describing my comment: 
 
In the light of service providers who do bundle voice and video
services, it makes sense to aggregate Telephony separately from other
real time service classes. If separate, the aggregate treatment for
Telephony can service towards the 'VLow' sensitivity Telephony has to
delay, loss and jitter as opposed to the others (Signaling, Multimedia
Conferencing, Real-time Interactive, Broadcast Video) whose presence in
the same aggregate makes it 'harder' (for ex. in the current draft the
real time aggregate can get packets of very different sizes (namely
voice and video)) to provide a common treatment. This is truer when the
service provider's video traffic is substantial and in effect causes
elastic pressure on the aggregate.
 
Thanks, 
 
Pratik 
 
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: "Jozef Babiarz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:14 -0500

Pratik, please let me explain as the current version of draft is not
complete.

1. We are not stating that elastic (data) and real-time inelastic traffic be
mixed together and serviced out of the same queue in routers.

2. Before aggregating real-time inelastic traffic, per service class traffic
conditioning (admission control or policing) must be performed. 

3. EF PHB (priority scheduled queue) is used to forward the aggregated
real-time traffic and is engineered to accommodate the aggregated traffic.
(therefore, very low packet loss). 

4. The link speeds are high so that the delta in sterilization delay of
voice and video packets is small enough that it does not effected the
end-to-end jitter for voice.

Yes, I believe we need to add guidelines on how traffic should be
aggregated.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards, Joe. 
Jozef Babiarz 
email: [email-masked]  

-----Original Message-----
From: Bose, Pratik [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:27 PM
To: Babiarz, Jozef [CAR:0S03:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Cc: Chan, Kwok-Ho [BL60:470:EXCH]; Baker Fred
Subject: Comment on DiffServ Aggregation

I had briefly discussed this with Kwok-Ho Chan after the minneapolis tsvwg
meeting and had promised to write an email describing my comment: 

In the light of service providers who do bundle voice and video services, it
makes sense to aggregate Telephony separately from other real time service
classes. If separate, the aggregate treatment for Telephony can service
towards the 'VLow' sensitivity Telephony has to delay, loss and jitter as
opposed to the others (Signaling, Multimedia Conferencing, Real-time
Interactive, Broadcast Video) whose presence in the same aggregate makes it
'harder' (for ex. in the current draft the real time aggregate can get
packets of very different sizes (namely voice and video)) to provide a
common treatment. This is truer when the service provider's video traffic is
substantial and in effect causes elastic pressure on the aggregate.

Thanks, 

Pratik