Yes, we absolutely must address them in the context of real-life
architecture deployment scenarios.
Janet
"Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote on 11/16/2006
08:29:59 AM:
Janet,
I agree that the items you listed below are best analyzed/discussed in
the IETF, for as long as real-life architecture deployment scenarios are
taken into account.
Martin
Janet Gunn wrote on 11/16:
Some of the possibilities in that continuum include (in no particular
order):
- Allowing extra sessions in, and permitting degradation in QoS across
all
sessions.
- Allowing a higher packet drop rate across all the "lower priority"
calls.
- Negotiating a lower bandwidth allocation, possibly accompanied by a
changing to a lower rate bandwidth codec when a higher priority session
needs to "preempt".
- Negotiating (or arbitrarily imposing) a different PHB (e.g. AF or BE
rather than EF) for lower priority sessions when a higher priority
session
needs to "preempt".
- Different Capacity Admission Control mechanisms for different priority
sessions.
The analysis/understanding of these (and other) alternatives is much
better
done in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-swiched SDOs.
Janet
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf