North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: TOS history?
- From: Dana Hudes
- Date: Tue Feb 22 09:09:36 2000
thanks for the information all, and to Ping Pan for reminding me that we used to support TOS on the Milford router. I vaguely recall now that was a feature added late in the product lifecycle, so may have only been available on the IBM Global Network. It is a trivia problem at this point. I have sufficient material to revise my lecture notes.
Although I want to point out that low delay is RFC 791 back in 1981.
It had precedence and TOS specified. I know all routers support the precedence field, and its interesting
about the use of TOS and low delay to avoid dial-up links where possible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Allen Simpson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dana Hudes" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: TOS history?
> Dana Hudes wrote:
> > Was this something actually supported in the Internet? Widely? any examples of who?
> > Around when did it stop being supported?
> > Did anyone ever actually support RFC1349 in a host or router?
> Yes, on the half-dozen or so routers that I worked on, the low delay bit
> was supported. This was especially important for dial-up links.
> (NetBlazer, Lan'sEnd, etc., none of which are in much use today.)
> I have also _set_ the low delay bit for telnet traffic on those boxen,
> but you don't telnet out of routers very often.
> I'd have to check the source, but I'm pretty sure I put at least some
> of that stuff in Qualcomm/Sony cell phones and base stations, so it
> might still be in use today.
> I have also used the TOS bits in a weighted fair queuing scheme.
> I never figured out how "high reliability" would be implemented. I just
> tried to never have low reliability. :-)
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32