Bei-Bei:
Please notice I have added this thread to the TSVWG mailing list.
Please see response embedded below.
Any additional input are welcomed.
Thanks!
-- Kwok Ho --

At 10:39 PM 12/4/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Kwok Ho:
 
Thank you very much for your so detailed answer.
Your help have resolved some questions I had.
Of course,you can put this conversation back onto the TSVWG mailing list.:)
 
And,may I understand the draft as follow : the gradation of traffic priority from high to low is
 CS7,CS6.EF,CS5.AF4,CS4,AF3,CS3,AF2,CS2,AF1,CS0(DF),CS1?

I think you can say that.  But in reality, IMHO, the network needs to make sure it
upholds the promise it gave to its customer, no matter which service class it is.
This may mean the network needs to admit less traffic that goes into service class using
EF so the service classes using CS4 and AF4x will still uphold the promise to its users.
The decision is on which service classes a network supports (they don't need to support
all the service classes) and how much of each.

I have cleared about those service classes except for the Broadcast Video Service Class.
Based on the draft,Broadcast video is inelastic traffic,and Multimedia Streaming is elastic.
Why do the former use CS3 and the latter use AF3?
And in 4.2.1 part of draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-02, the Multimedia Streaming class include
the Broadcast video service.What is the reason for separating the broadcast video from the multimedia streaming
in draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-03(and 04) ?

Broadcast Video service class is meant for High Definition broadcasts and the likes.
We have found that the Loss Tolerance for these traffic is relatively lower than Multimedia
Streaming service class.  Hence its separation.  Again this is based on what the application
requires of the network.  At low loss high capacity parts of the network, both of these
service classes may get treated together without impact to the promises made to the
user of each service class (discussion for the service class aggregation draft). 

 
Thank you very much!
 
 
 
                                                                  Cai bei-bei
ps:Best wishes to you!
¡¡¡¡
 
 
======== 2004-12-02 23:49:52 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º ========
 

Bei-Bei:
Agree that they all need low delay, low jitter.
Other factors that affects the service classes placement are loss tolerance, traffic elasticity,
and packet size (and its variation).

Telephony uses EF. the Multimedia Conferencing uses AF because it is elastic traffic.
There is also the Real-Time Interactive class using CS4 that handles inelastic video traffic.
Please reference Figure 1 of
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-04.txt

EF PHB normally get deployed with some kind of upper limit on the traffic it treats, either
with some policer, rate limiter, and/or some other admission control methods.
With this in mind, the EF traffic should not starve the AF4x and CS4 traffic.  Each should
forward the traffic as configured (one may not want to have too much EF traffic that will
add too much delay to the CS4 and AF4x traffic making them un-acceptable).  Without
having the elastic traffic adversely affecting the inelastic traffic.  Or having large packets
adding too much jitter to small inelastic traffic.

This draft takes the points of view of how each application using the different service classes
will receive the network treatment it requires (end to end), when traffic in multiple service classes
need to share the network.  When these traffic traverse both low and high capacity networks/links.

There is another draft that discusses how in high capacity networks/links, multiple service classes
can be aggregated together.  I have published -00 version of this draft but I am in the process of
updating this draft to add more content and making changes based on the comments received.
I would advise to wait for the -01 of draft-chan-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr.

I hope this help to answer/resolve the questions/issues you have.

Also, can I put this conversation back onto the TSVWG mailing list?

Thank you!
-- Kwok Ho --


At 08:17 AM 12/2/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Kwok Ho Chan:
 
Thank you for your answers.
Yes,I am a student of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications of China.
Now we are doing a project about end-to-end IP QoS.
 
Every service has different QoS requirement.So it will be classed, and deployed with DSCP, then be treated differently based on the different class.
Voice and Vedio require real-time, very low delay, very low jitter,which must use EF PHB.So I am
puzzled that Multimedia Conferencing use AF PHB. Services have lower priority ,they may wait in a queue for a longer time, which will bring higher delay. The same question exist between multimedia  streaming and broadcast video and so on.
 
We want to use the draft to class services, and deal with these based on the DSCP. 
 
¡¡¡¡Thank you very much!!
 
======== 2004-11-24 22:54:53 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º ========
 

Bei-Bei:
Thank you for your comments.
I think you mis-understood the concepts.
The basic-classes draft separates the traffic into different classes
based on their traffic characteristics.
It does not necessarily mean Multimedia Conferencing is lower than Telephony,
they just needs to be separated.
We also recommend some treatment approaches for each Service Class based
on each of their traffic characteristics.
Please look at (read) the draft this way and let us know if think differently.
Thanks!
-- Kwok Ho Chan --
p.s. Are you based in China?  It looks like a Chinese name to me.
      How may you want to use this draft?


At 09:18 AM 11/24/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Hi:

  I have some problems about draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-04.

  1.Why is the priority of Multimedia Conferencing(eg.H.323/V2 Video conferencing) lower than telephone? The former(video) sometimes need very low delay,eg.CBR video.

  2 Usually,the signalling precede the corresponding service. Why does the service class signalling have a lower priority than telephone? And i also don't know why the QAM is behind Low Latency  data,and the broadcast video is behind multimedia streaming?In my concepte,broadcast video is include in multimeida streaming and need less delay.

 
 
  Thank you very much!!
       

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Cai Bei-bei
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-11-24

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ÖÂ
Àñ£¡
 
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡²ÌÝíÝí
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-12-02
 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ÖÂ
Àñ£¡
 
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡²ÌÝíÝí
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-12-03
 

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

Cai Bei-Bei:
We are not saying AF3x is "higher priority" than CS3.
We are just indicating that the 2 service classes need to be treated differently
in parts of the end-to-end path.
We are not saying how many queues and what the queue scheduling algorithm must be.
Hence we are not saying AF3x must be scheduled ahead of CS3.
-- Kwok Ho --

At 09:43 AM 12/7/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Kwok Ho :
 
Thank your help!
 
In your previous letter, you said :"We have found that the Loss Tolerance for these traffic(Broadcast Video service)
 is relatively lower than Multimedia Streaming service class." Does this sentence mean that the broadcast video service need
lower packet loss than Multimedia Streaming service class? If it is yes, I think it is more reasonable that
broadcast video service have a higher priority. But broadcast video servie is CS3,whose priority is lower than
than Multimedia Streaming service(AF3).Do it have some antinomy?
 
Thanks a lot!
best regards!
                                                                  cai Bei-Bei
 
¡¡¡¡
 
======== 2004-12-06 23:28:11 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º ========
 

Bei-Bei:
Please notice I have added this thread to the TSVWG mailing list.
Please see response embedded below.
Any additional input are welcomed.
Thanks!
-- Kwok Ho --

At 10:39 PM 12/4/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Kwok Ho:
 
Thank you very much for your so detailed answer.
Your help have resolved some questions I had.
Of course,you can put this conversation back onto the TSVWG mailing list.:)
 
And,may I understand the draft as follow : the gradation of traffic priority from high to low is
 CS7,CS6.EF,CS5.AF4,CS4,AF3,CS3,AF2,CS2,AF1,CS0(DF),CS1?

I think you can say that.  But in reality, IMHO, the network needs to make sure it
upholds the promise it gave to its customer, no matter which service class it is.
This may mean the network needs to admit less traffic that goes into service class using
EF so the service classes using CS4 and AF4x will still uphold the promise to its users.
The decision is on which service classes a network supports (they don't need to support
all the service classes) and how much of each.

I have cleared about those service classes except for the Broadcast Video Service Class.
Based on the draft,Broadcast video is inelastic traffic,and Multimedia Streaming is elastic.
Why do the former use CS3 and the latter use AF3?
And in 4.2.1 part of draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-02, the Multimedia Streaming class include
the Broadcast video service.What is the reason for separating the broadcast video from the multimedia streaming
in draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-03(and 04) ?

Broadcast Video service class is meant for High Definition broadcasts and the likes.
We have found that the Loss Tolerance for these traffic is relatively lower than Multimedia
Streaming service class.  Hence its separation.  Again this is based on what the application
requires of the network.  At low loss high capacity parts of the network, both of these
service classes may get treated together without impact to the promises made to the
user of each service class (discussion for the service class aggregation draft). 

Thank you very much!
 
 
 
                                                                  Cai bei-bei
ps:Best wishes to you!
¡¡¡¡
 
 
======== 2004-12-02 23:49:52 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º ========
 

Bei-Bei:
Agree that they all need low delay, low jitter.
Other factors that affects the service classes placement are loss tolerance, traffic elasticity,
and packet size (and its variation).

Telephony uses EF. the Multimedia Conferencing uses AF because it is elastic traffic.
There is also the Real-Time Interactive class using CS4 that handles inelastic video traffic.
Please reference Figure 1 of
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-04.txt

EF PHB normally get deployed with some kind of upper limit on the traffic it treats, either
with some policer, rate limiter, and/or some other admission control methods.
With this in mind, the EF traffic should not starve the AF4x and CS4 traffic.  Each should
forward the traffic as configured (one may not want to have too much EF traffic that will
add too much delay to the CS4 and AF4x traffic making them un-acceptable).  Without
having the elastic traffic adversely affecting the inelastic traffic.  Or having large packets
adding too much jitter to small inelastic traffic.

This draft takes the points of view of how each application using the different service classes
will receive the network treatment it requires (end to end), when traffic in multiple service classes
need to share the network.  When these traffic traverse both low and high capacity networks/links.

There is another draft that discusses how in high capacity networks/links, multiple service classes
can be aggregated together.  I have published -00 version of this draft but I am in the process of
updating this draft to add more content and making changes based on the comments received.
I would advise to wait for the -01 of draft-chan-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr.

I hope this help to answer/resolve the questions/issues you have.

Also, can I put this conversation back onto the TSVWG mailing list?

Thank you!
-- Kwok Ho --


At 08:17 AM 12/2/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Kwok Ho Chan:
 
Thank you for your answers.
Yes,I am a student of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications of China.
Now we are doing a project about end-to-end IP QoS.
 
Every service has different QoS requirement.So it will be classed, and deployed with DSCP, then be treated differently based on the different class.
Voice and Vedio require real-time, very low delay, very low jitter,which must use EF PHB.So I am
puzzled that Multimedia Conferencing use AF PHB. Services have lower priority ,they may wait in a queue for a longer time, which will bring higher delay. The same question exist between multimedia  streaming and broadcast video and so on.
 
We want to use the draft to class services, and deal with these based on the DSCP. 
 
¡¡¡¡Thank you very much!!
 
======== 2004-11-24 22:54:53 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º ========
 

Bei-Bei:
Thank you for your comments.
I think you mis-understood the concepts.
The basic-classes draft separates the traffic into different classes
based on their traffic characteristics.
It does not necessarily mean Multimedia Conferencing is lower than Telephony,
they just needs to be separated.
We also recommend some treatment approaches for each Service Class based
on each of their traffic characteristics.
Please look at (read) the draft this way and let us know if think differently.
Thanks!
-- Kwok Ho Chan --
p.s. Are you based in China?  It looks like a Chinese name to me.
      How may you want to use this draft?


At 09:18 AM 11/24/2004, =?gb2312?B?sszd7d3t?= wrote:

Hi:

  I have some problems about draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-04.

  1.Why is the priority of Multimedia Conferencing(eg.H.323/V2 Video conferencing) lower than telephone? The former(video) sometimes need very low delay,eg.CBR video.

  2 Usually,the signalling precede the corresponding service. Why does the service class signalling have a lower priority than telephone? And i also don't know why the QAM is behind Low Latency  data,and the broadcast video is behind multimedia streaming?In my concepte,broadcast video is include in multimeida streaming and need less delay.

 
 
  Thank you very much!!
       

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Cai Bei-bei
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-11-24

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ÖÂ
Àñ£¡
 
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡²ÌÝíÝí
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-12-02
 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ÖÂ
Àñ£¡
 
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡²ÌÝíÝí
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-12-03
 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ÖÂ
Àñ£¡
 
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡²ÌÝíÝí
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡cbeibei <at> 263.net
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-12-07
 

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg