Flow Grouping For Reducing Reservation Requirements for Guaranteed Delay Service
draft-rampal-flow-delay-service-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Roch Guerin , Dr. Sanjeev Rampal | ||
| Last updated | 1997-07-17 (Latest revision 1996-12-18) | ||
| RFC stream | (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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 purpose of this document is to illustrate when and how flow aggregation can be of benefit in the context of the Guaranteed Service. Specifically, it identifies simple cases and provides generic rules for when grouping of flows allows a reduction in the amount of resources (bandwidth) needed to ensure the deterministic Guaranteed Service delay bounds of all flows. The benefits of grouping should be especially of interest to, say, Internet Service Providers, wishing to interconnect sites with Guaranteed Service flows. In particular, this document shows that in the case of flows with identical traffic characteristics and requirements, e.g., Internet voice, grouping of flows is ALWAYS beneficial. This technique is not intended for IETF standardization and is being submitted for informational purposes only.
Authors
Dr. Roch Guerin
Dr. Sanjeev Rampal
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)