Re: Datagram? Packet? (was : APEX)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Valdis;

> > In this thread, as Noel said:
> > : It's easy to imagine an ATM-like system
> > : in which circuit ID's are global in scope.
> > 
> > the circuit ID does not neccessarily imply special routing.
> 
> If you're not routing based on circuit ID, why are you bothering to have one?

I'm routing based on circuit ID. Current RSVP does not.

RSVP is bothering to have one for prioritized queueing.

> > However, you should also be aware that RSVP is virtually useless
> > without QoS routing.
> 
> Yes, a protocol to tweak the control of an underlying XYZ is pretty useless
> if there isn't an XYZ to tweak...
> 
> You're overlooking the basic distinction between a circuit and RSVP - if
> something happens along the way to break the previously established circuit,
> the circuit is *BROKEN*, and nothing moves until it is either re-established or
> re-negotiated.

You misunderstand the problem.

The problem is that a protocol to tweak the control of an underlying
bandwidth allocation is pretty useless if there isn't enough bandwidth
to tweak.

You can't reserve 1Gbps on the best effort path with T1 circuit, even
if the T1 circuit is not broken.

						Masataka Ohta


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]