Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!agate!ucbvax!GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG!barns
From: barns@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: When is a link saturated?
Message-ID: <9102041401.AA06126@gateway.mitre.org>
Date: 4 Feb 91 13:59:15 GMT
References: <40@prang.TEST.Vitalink.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

I have been trying to interest people in using the Precedence field
where appropriate, as well as TOS.  There are some words in the draft
update of Router Requirements RFC on what the router should do about
precedence (along with what it should do about everything else).
(This document is available as an Internet Draft at the usual places.)
This, too, gets around the problem of the routers having to be told
in advance which protocols are considered important.  It also allows
for the possibility that (for example) some SNMP traffic is considered
very important and other SNMP traffic is considered expendable.

I also drafted a qualitative description of what facilities a host
should have for dealing with the precedence field.  This hasn't been
published anywhere but I'll send it to anyone who asks.

Bill Barns / MITRE-Washington / barns@gateway.mitre.org