Re: proposed charter 5 priority levels
Janet P Gunn <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:25:06 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ieprep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF9C717810.174C5F41-ON852571F5.00754B8D-852571F5.00758DD4@csc.com> |
Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote on 09/26/2006 12:56:15 PM: > > In message <OFBAA95066.05652C8C-ON852571F5.004A9C8A-852571F5.004B6690@csc.com> > Janet P Gunn writes: > > > > > > As RFC 4412 makes perfectly clear, the RPH serves a dual role of signalling > > priority across an IP network (e.g. from an originating circuit switched > > access network to a terminating circuit switched access network) as well as > > signalling priority within the IP network. > > > > For each of the namespaces described in RFC 4412, the number of priority > > values (5 in most cases, 6 in one) is driven by the former role, based on > > the number of priority values in use, or being considered, in the access > > network priority scheme. > > > > The issue of how many priority levels to differentiate WITHIN the IP > > network is an issue currently being addressed by vendors and providers. > > > > Janet > > > Janet, > > You are right, but you may be just focusing on SIP which is one peice > of the puzzle. > > RFC 4412 does not make it perfectly clear whether we need 1 DSCP code > point, EF, or 5 DSCP code points (IP Prec 0-4?) or 15 DSCP code > points (the 4 AF classes plus one more AF class. Or is it some > multiple of 6? This RFC doesn't even mention DSCP. > >... Since 4412 is a SIP document, it would not be appropriate for it to specify DSCPs. However, it does say " While the 'Resource-Priority' header field does not directly influence the forwarding behavior of IP routers or the use of communications resources such as packet forwarding priority, procedures for using this header field to cause such influence may be defined in other documents." which clearly refers to things such as DSCP.