RE: Differentiated Routing, not only plain rambo-SPF
"Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email protected]> Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:49:07 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.research.irtf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>Let us see :) You are contradicting your-self. Just in the above >para you said "SOME reduction in end-to-end performance" and >again said "diffrout is not going to solve ANY problem". end to end performance reduction is authors view. My comments were more particular towards *diffrout* than *ToS routing*. diffrout is suggesting n-class whereas ToS routing just two classes. you are mixing author's ToS scheme with your suggestions. diffrout is not scalable when compared to ToS routing. So talk about your proposal (diffrout) than ToS routing. >If that SOME reduction is tolerable then, I think, we solved >SOME problem. Thus I can prove that that statement >"diffrout is not going to solve ANY problem" is incorrect. which problem you have solved here? If you consider end to end delay as major problem that diffrout is going to solve, first let us work with NSIS group to define the signaling mechanism and define some per-domain behaviour, develop some inter-domain business models and then we will solve the problem of e2e delay across a diffserv network.