| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I know Phil it has been included from day
one. I am missing the rational here; it makes little sense to specify a range
for a value that it is very deterministic in all the relevant RFCs. This old text needs a better rational 4
years later when applied to the RFCs mentioned below. Peretz Feder From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM] Peretz, Nobody changed it. It is exactly as it
appears in IEEE 802.16-2004. There has been no subsequent modification. Thanks, From: Feder, Peretz
(Peretz) [mailto:pfeder@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM] IEEE colleagues: I assume no response and no interest means
that nobody really cares if the strange ip-tos mask is removed, yes? Peretz Feder From: Feder, Peretz
(Peretz) Dear IEEE 802.16 Colleagues, Section 11.13.18.3.3.2 Type of
Service/DSCP (differentiated services codepoint)Range and Mask field talks about
ip-tos mask. What it the
idea behind the use of DSCP range and tos mask as described in that section? These terms are not mentioned in RFC 2474. In RFC2457 DiffServ, RFC2597 and RFC3246 AF and EF
classes are defined and they all refer to discrete values for DiffServ, no
mention of mask or a range. The IANA registry for these DSCP values is not
contiguous, how can a range or a mask be applied. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml Whoever brought this text in, can you provide the
logic behind this section please? Thanks in advance, Peretz Feder |