RE: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions

[Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]

I can even extrapolate your comment and look at the issue raised by you at
the scale of new end-to-end path; then some adjustments to QoS may be
required as the new end-to-end path may not support QoS that was there on
the old end-to-end path. (of course, end-to-end path also includes AR).
Collecting all this together, I can come up with the following requirement:

The QoS mechanism must have provision to adapt to available resources on the
new network path. (How it adapts to that is solution specific.)

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Xiaoming Fu [mailto:fu@ee.tu-berlin.de]
Sent: 17. April 2001 11:13
To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
Subject: Re: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions


Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> >7. Ability of QoS (re-)negotiation. A potential problem of
> >mobility/handoff is the traffic pushing on ARs/Access Networks will
> >change more dynamically.
> 
> This is a very important issue, I agree. However, I am not sure if this is
a
> part of our QoS mechanism or it is a bigger problem of service discovery
> mentioned in SeaMoby problem statement. QoS is one aspect of service
> discovery at large. Shall we proceed with the standard assumption that the
> target AR is known. 
The target AR can be known, however the burden on it before&after
handover is uncertain. Then some existing QoS classes or individual
flows have to re-negotiate with the AR (or  change the incoming
traffic's QoS requirements?) in case of congested AR to accomodate new
ones. This might be possible for some less stringent QoS requirements
traffic. 

> How to find it can be covered by some service discovery
> protocol. We can concentrate only on programming QoS support over the new
> data path.
> 
> 

Xiaoming