|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MEF 23.2
|
|
Title:
|
MEF 23.2 Carrier Ethernet Class of Service – Phase 3 - Implementation Agreement
In order to provide differentiated levels of service, it is necessary to classify incoming frames to
a service level either based on context (e.g., which EVC or OVC) or content (i.e, the contents of
a specific field within the frame).
MEF10.3 and MEF26.2 provide attributes for associating each ingress frame with a Class of
Service Name (CoS Name) for this purpose. Those specifications also provide attributes for
associating each ingress frame with a color.
This Implementation Agreement formalizes the CoS Name and defines three specific CoS
Names called Class of Service Labels (CoS Labels).
This IA also provides guidelines for CoS Names, in general, in terms of how the performance
objectives for OVCs are composed into performance objectives for EVCs.
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved in 2016
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
The Ethernet class of service definitions in MEF 23.2 supplement MEF 6.2 to form the basis of this Recommendation.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
No known issues.
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Commonly referenced all over the world for metro Ethernet services.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Commonly referenced all over the world for metro Ethernet services.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] MEF 10.3, “Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3”/
[2] IEEE 802.1Q – 2014, “IEEE Std 802.1Q™– 2014, IEEE Standards for Local and/
metropolitan area networks— Bridges and Bridged Networks, 3 November 2014”/
[3] RFC 2119, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, S. Bradner/
[4] MEF 4, “Metro Ethernet Network Architecture Framework - Part 1: Generic Framework”/
[5] Inter-provider Quality of Service, MIT Communications Futures Program, 2006/
[6] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, “Network performance objectives for IP-based/
services”, December 2011/
[7] MEF 3, “Circuit Emulation Service Definitions, Framework and Requirements in Metro/
Ethernet Networks”/
[8] RFC 2597, “Assured Forwarding PHB Group”, Heinanen/
[9] ITU-T Recommendation I.356, “B-ISDN ATM layer cell transfer performance,” March/
2000/
[10] MEF Technical Specification MEF 26.2, “External Network Network Interface (ENNI)/
and Operator Service Attributes”/
[11] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, “Internet protocol data communication service – IP/
packet transfer and availability performance parameters”, March 2011/
[12] MEF 45, “Multi-CEN L2CP”/
[13] MEF 12.2, “Carrier Ethernet Network Architecture Framework Part 2: Ethernet/
Services Layer”/
[14] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1563, “Ethernet frame transfer and availability/
performance”, January 2009/
[15] Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 2474, “Definition of the Differentiated Services/
Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers,” December 1998/
[16] MEF 6.2, “EVC Ethernet Services Definitions Phase 3”/
[17] MEF 51, “OVC Services Definitions”/
[18] MEF 13, “User Network Interface (UNI) Type 1 Implementation Agreement”/
[19] Guido Appenzeller, Isaac Keslassy, and Nick McKeown. Sizing Router Buffers./
Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2004, Portland OR, USA, August 30-September 3, 2004
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
MEF:
|
|
|
The MEF was recognized under the provisions of ITU-T Recommendation A.5 on 24 September 2002. Qualifying information is on file with TSB.
9.5 The IPR policy of the MEF may be found in Article 10 of the MEF Bylaws which are available on the MEF public WEB site metroethernetforum.org.
9.6 All MEF Technical Specifications, Implementation Agreements, and Test Specifications are approved by an electronic letter ballot of all MEF members. For a MEF document to pass an electronic letter ballot at least a quorum of members (defined by the MEF bylaws as 1/3 of the MEF membership) must vote Yes or No. In addition, of the Yes plus No votes at least 75% of the votes must be Yes.
9.7 All published MEF documents are available for download free of charge in PDF or WORD format from the MEF public WEB site www.metroethernetforum.org .
9.8 Each revision of a given MEF document has a different MEF number.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
