|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: TOS history?
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. Dana ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email protected]> To: "Dana Hudes" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> 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. :-) > > [email protected] > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 >
|