Providing Integrated Services in the Presence of Layer-2 Frame Switching Devices
draft-krawczyk-intserv-l2-switch-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | John J. Krawczyk | ||
| Last updated | 1996-02-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The presence of Layer-2 (L2) frame switching devices, such as ethernet and token-ring switches, as well as Frame Relay [FR1990], creates problems in delivering the end-to-end behavior as defined by the service models being developed by the Integrated Services Working Group [Guar95] [CL95] [Pred95] [CD95]. Resource reservation protocols (RSVP [RSVP96], ST2 [RFC1190], and ST2+ [RFC1819]) are used to signal the required Quality of Service (QoS) to the router nodes along the paths (or trees in the multicast case) from sender(s) to receiver(s). The hosts and routers are required to act as proxies for their attached media and, consequently, any L2 devices attached to that media. Unfortunately, most of these L2 devices do not have the ability to participate in the activities required to achieve the new service models.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)