Re: H.248.64 question

Does it mean that you can't you mix-up Best Effort traffic with say VoIP traffic 

 

De : Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2011 10:42
À : CHATRAS Bruno RD-CORE-ISS; [email protected]
Objet : RE: H.248.64 question

 

Bruno,

 

sorry for delay!

 

There are not any straightforward answers because the usage of H.248.52 (& perhaps H.248.53) implies certain roles.

 

E.g., DSCP marking (using H.248.52):

possible roles of an IP node

- DS pre-marker

- DS edge router

- DS interior node (providing DS PHB)

 

ALL existing H.248 Profiles with H.248.52 usage define just the DS pre-marker behaviour! Just because there were not any stage 2 requirements for other roles.

I guess that this situation is due to the specific location considered for that H.248 MGs (at the edge, either at access or peering side).

 

Now, I'm not sure what you are looking exactly, hm?

Let's consider a "DS interior node" role plus IPR mode.

The next question would be whether you are really want

a) DS PHB control for individual IP bearer connections? or

b) DS PHB control on aggregated level?

 

On a first glance I would conclude that H.248.52 (& .53) togther with H.248.64 may be applied at the granularity of route levels (aka RIPR contexts).

[BC] So the ds/dscp property would be set on a termination of a RIPR context rather than the a termination of an IIPR context? If yes, this need to be stated somewhere, e.g. in H.248.79....

 

That's already a sufficient baseline in my opinion for scenarios like NAT66-less plus DS pre-marker, i.e. an H.248 IP-IP MG located between two IPv6 networks (without the enforcement of local NAPT).

 

Regards,

Albrecht

 

 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
	Sent: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2011 13:29
	To: [email protected]
	Subject: [Megaco] H.248.64 question

	Hi all,

	 

	A question about H.248.64:  Is the IPR mode compatible with the use of properties such as those defined in H.248.52 or H.248.53? If yes, I don't really understand how the MGC can request the MG to use a specific DSCP value for a particular packet for example? Can someone shed light on this?

	 

	Bruno

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco