nanog mailing list archives
RE: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:00:09 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Vadim Antonov Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:18 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth [deleted, lots of good ideas and suggestions. I agree with essentially all of it] Another area which needs improvement is making L2 switches similarly aware of community TOS in IP packets. --- Why would an L2 switch need or even want to be aware of TOS? Wouldn't this be a Class 3/4..7 issue? If community TOS is supported, those guys that would benefit from awareness of it in their internal network would address this at a higher level switch I'd think. I took your suggestion as a "best effort" below "normal" effort for "community" TOS. I could be mistaken. Deepak Jain AiNET
Current thread:
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth, (continued)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Stephen Griffin (Feb 05)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth jlewis (Feb 02)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Alex Rubenstein (Feb 02)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth jlewis (Feb 02)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth measl (Feb 02)
- Message not available
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Robert Boyle (Feb 02)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Alex Rubenstein (Feb 02)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Vadim Antonov (Feb 08)
- RE: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Deepak Jain (Feb 08)
- RE: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Vadim Antonov (Feb 08)
- Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth Stephen Sprunk (Feb 09)