📄 rfc2214.txt
字号:
Should the sum of the different elements delay exceed (2**32)-1, the end-to-end delay should be (2**32)-1." ::= { intSrvGuaranteedIfEntry 2 } intSrvGuaranteedIfSlack OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..'0FFFFFFF'h) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "If a network element uses a certain amount of slack, Si, to reduce the amount of resources that it has reserved for a particular flow, i, the value Si should be stored at the network element. Subsequently, if reservation re- freshes are received for flow i, the network element must use the same slack Si without any further computation. This guarantees consisten- cy in the reservation process. As an example for the use of the slack term, consider the case where the required end-to-end delay, Dreq, is larger than the maximum delay of the fluid flow system. In this, Ctot is theBaker, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5]RFC 2214 IS Guaranteed Service MIB using SMIv2 September 1997 sum of the Backlog terms end to end, and Dtot is the sum of the delay terms end to end. Dreq is obtained by setting R=r in the fluid delay formula, and is given by b/r + Ctot/r + Dtot. In this case the slack term is S = Dreq - (b/r + Ctot/r + Dtot). The slack term may be used by the network ele- ments to adjust their local reservations, so that they can admit flows that would otherwise have been rejected. A service element at an in- termediate network element that can internally differentiate between delay and rate guarantees can now take advantage of this information to lower the amount of resources allocated to this flow. For example, by taking an amount of slack s <= S, an RCSD scheduler [5] can increase the local delay bound, d, assigned to the flow, to d+s. Given an RSpec, (Rin, Sin), it would do so by setting Rout = Rin and Sout = Sin - s. Similarly, a network element using a WFQ scheduler can decrease its local reservation from Rin to Rout by using some of the slack in the RSpec. This can be accomplished by using the transformation rules given in the previous section, that ensure that the reduced reserva- tion level will not increase the overall end- to-end delay." ::= { intSrvGuaranteedIfEntry 3 } intSrvGuaranteedIfStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "'valid' on interfaces that are configured for the Guaranteed Service." ::= { intSrvGuaranteedIfEntry 4 }-- No notifications are currently defined-- conformance informationBaker, et. al. Standards Track [Page 6]RFC 2214 IS Guaranteed Service MIB using SMIv2 September 1997intSrvGuaranteedGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { intSrvGuaranteedConformance 1 }intSrvGuaranteedCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { intSrvGuaranteedConformance 2 }-- compliance statements intSrvGuaranteedCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement " MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { intSrvGuaranteedIfAttribGroup } ::= { intSrvGuaranteedCompliances 1 } intSrvGuaranteedIfAttribGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { intSrvGuaranteedIfBacklog, intSrvGuaranteedIfDelay, intSrvGuaranteedIfSlack, intSrvGuaranteedIfStatus } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "These objects are required for Systems sup- porting the Guaranteed Service of the Integrat- ed Services Architecture." ::= { intSrvGuaranteedGroups 2 }END4. Security Considerations The use of an SNMP SET results in an RSVP or Integrated Services reservation under rules that are different compared to if the reservation was negotiated using RSVP. However, no other security considerations exist other than those imposed by SNMP itself.Baker, et. al. Standards Track [Page 7]RFC 2214 IS Guaranteed Service MIB using SMIv2 September 19975. Authors' Addresses Fred Baker Postal: Cisco Systems 519 Lado Drive Santa Barbara, California 93111 Phone: +1 805 681 0115 EMail: fred@cisco.com John Krawczyk Postal: ArrowPoint Communications 235 Littleton Road Westford, Massachusetts 01886 Phone: +1 508 692 5875 EMail: jjk@tiac.net Arun Sastry Postal: Cisco Systems 210 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95314 Phone: +1 408 526 7685 EMail: arun@cisco.com6. Acknowledgements This document was produced by the Integrated Services Working Group.7. References [1] Rose, M., Editor, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", STD 17, RFC 1213, May 1990. [2] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December, 1987). [3] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for Standardization. International Standard 8825, (December, 1987).Baker, et. al. Standards Track [Page 8]RFC 2214 IS Guaranteed Service MIB using SMIv2 September 1997Baker, et. al. Standards Track [Page 9]
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -