A Two-Tier Resource Management Model for Differentiated Services Networks

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Lixia Zhang  , Raj Yavatkar  , Francis Reichmeyer  , Andreas Terzis  , Lyndon Ong 
Last updated 1998-11-24
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


This draft proposes a two-tier resource management model for differentiated services networks. Following the approach taken by the Internet routing architecture, we propose that bilateral service agreements are made for aggregate border-crossing traffic between neighboring administrative domains. We also propose that administrative domains individually make their own decision on strategies and protocols to use for internal resource management and QoS support, both to meet internal client needs and to fulfill external commitments. We sketch out one specific realization of this two-tier model by having a Bandwidth-Broker (BB) as the resource manager for each domain and a BB-to-BB protocol, equivalent to BGP in routing, for inter-domain resource management. We believe that this two-tier resource management model matches the direction of, and complement the work by, the diffserv effort. We also expect this two-tier model to scale well in the global, heterogeneous Internet. Note: This draft contains pictures that could not be included in the text version. A postscript version of the draft (including the pictures) can be found at http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/publications.f.html


Lixia Zhang (lixia@cs.ucla.edu)
Raj Yavatkar (raj.yavatkar@intel.com)
Francis Reichmeyer (freichmeyer@baynetworks.com)
Andreas Terzis (terzis@cs.ucla.edu)
Lyndon Ong (lyong@ciena.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)