RE: Sig MIB, NCS SF Objects -1: CM or MTA config?
"Jean-Francois Mule" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipcdn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Fyi, I am trying to get formal input from some MSOs on whether they want to use the MTA NCS SF mechanism in the future. If I don't get any positive responses, I see no reason why we should keep these objects at this point in the development of this mib. I don't expect much until June 9. Jean-François > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Francois Mule > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:08 PM > To: David De Reu; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Sig MIB, NCS SF Objects -1: CM or MTA config? > > > David wrote: > > Another pro is that this mechanism also works for a standalone MTA. > Good point, yes, I will add it to the list. > > > Wouldn't it be nice if we were able to use the same MIBs for > > both E-MTA and S-MTA? > Yes indeed but the QoS models for E-MTAs and S-MTAs are > drastically different. The E-MTAs being deployed today use > CM/MTA initiated DQoS SFs for voice media & static/dynamic SF > for NCS. The S-MTAs are likely to use a proxied QoS model > following the PacketCable MM spec. > > Jean-Francois. > > _______________________________________________ > IPCDN mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn > >