RE: [Fwd: stds-80220-requirements: Proposal for Section 4.1.1 MBWAQoS]
Jim,
If you mandate MF classifiers but say they don't have to be applied to compressed and/or encapsulated packets, in essence you say that any kind of classifiers are optional, if all traffic is encapsulated, as is in some mobile standards. So, the requirement you propose is then inconsistent with the example you give.
MF classifiers may be used for initial traffic classification. That may be done at the .20 interface but also may be done somewhere else in the access network. If the traffic is initially classified somewhere else in the network, the .20 interface needs to classify only based on DSCPs and map them to PHBs. That is complete standard DiffServ.
This is more powerful than the solution you give as it allows compressing and tunneling, and classifying encapsulated traffic as well. Different classes of traffic can be differentiated through the TOS byte which is available in the IP wrapper of the tunneled packet. That is IETF standard and means VoIP traffic would simply be tagged with a VoIP DSCP that may only be unique to the DiffServ domain of the access network.
Therefore, we definitely don't see any need for mandating MF classifiers in the .20 interface.
The essence here is that there are different network architectures in which .20 could be deployed, each one of which may have a different way of associating DSPCs with PHBs and traffic flows. Therefore, we strongly agree with the sentiment and proposal expressed by Samir and Vince.
Branislav
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Landon [mailto:james.w.landon@mail.sprint.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:19 AM
> To: Branislav Meandzija
> Cc: 802-20 IEEE requirements list; byoung@navini.com; David McGinniss
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: stds-80220-requirements: Proposal for Section 4.1.1
> MBWAQoS]
>
>
> Branislav,
>
> The MF classifier model should not and will not prevent encapsulating
> and compressing packets between the mobile and nodes upstream of the
> BS. If an encapsulated or compressed packet cannot be
> fingerprinted by
> the MF classifier, it will simply be dropped into a default forwarding
> behavior priority queue. As such, I am still of the opinion that MF
> classifiers must be a part of the this standard. One example for this
> necessity is enabling the prioritization of certain applications, such
> as VoIP.
>
> In adition, the system should support the ability to apply
> both varying
> degrees of adaptive coding and ARQ to a forwarding behavior. The
> rational is that certain applications need better RF link reliability
> characteristics or the overall performance of the application is
> negatively impacted.
>
> Please review attached.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Landon
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 20:04, Branislav Meandzija wrote:
> >
> > .20 should not prevent encapsulating and compressing packets between
> the mobile and nodes upstream of the BS (e.g. TCP/IP header
> compression
> or PPP compression in 3GPP2). Therefore MF classifiers, especially if
> extended to fields beyond TCP/IP, should be optional. I made the small
> edit in Jim's write-up to reflect that.
> >
> > Branislav
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> > >
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > > Jim Landon
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:54 PM
> > > To: 802-20 IEEE requirements list; byoung@navini.com
> > > Cc: David McGinniss
> > > Subject: [Fwd: stds-80220-requirements: Proposal for Section
> > > 4.1.1 MBWA
> > > QoS]
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > While I agree in principle with the contribution submitted by Bill
> > > Young, it lacks certain components that this group should consider
> > > including within the 802.20 standard.
> > >
> > > Attached, please find proposed revision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Landon
> > > Sprint Broadband Wireless
> > > Principle Engineer
> > > 425-830-3272
> > > james.w.landon@mail.sprint.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Forwarded Message-----
> > >
> > > From: bill young <byoung@navini.com>
> > > To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> > > Cc: david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com
> > > Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Proposal for Section
> 4.1.1 MBWA QoS
> > > Date: 24 Jul 2003 12:52:55 -0500
> > >
> > > Colleagues,
> > >
> > > Please find attached an updated Section 4.1.1 QoS For MBWA.
> > > This recommendation is submiited by:
> > > Arif Ansari - Nextel
> > > Samir Kappor - Flarion
> > > Vince Park - Flarion
> > > Bill Young - Navini
> > > Mike Youssefmir - Aarrycom
> > >
> > > <<Requirements_QOS_07.24.03_Final.doc>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bill Young
> > >
> > > Navini Networks
> > >
> > > Office (972) 852-4242
> > > Mobile (972) 814-9191
> > > Email: mailto:byoung@navini.com
> > > URL: www.navini.com
> > >
> > > Internet at the Speed of Thought......
> > >
> > >
> > >
>