Slashdot Mirror

They already have the keys to the kingdom - https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/workprogram/Report_WorkItem.asp?WKI_ID=53305.

I can only find so far one document that is functioning WRT the LTE patents, but they list Samsung as having patents, but no patents for Huawei.
http://www.i-runway.com/images...

Perhaps when this site stops falling over itself, you can point to the Huawei patent on LTE that seems like others don't even know exists:
https://ipr.etsi.org/

So, what I see here is that Huawei will get a big smackdown when they can't sell their own devices anymore due to Samsung pulling permission to use their 4G LTE patents.

It isn't jingoism when it is fact proven over and over. Huawei have been caught using stolen code in their devices, so how is that not fact now and instead bigotry?

I read the spec. Did you?

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/et...

According to the spec, the SIM card has several files that contain information about the networks the phone is allowed or disallowed to connect to. These files are EF PLMN and EF FPLMN, they can be edited if you have PIN1. They're present in both, 2G SIM and 3G USIM cards. For more details, see section 10.2.16 EF FPLMN (Forbidden PLMNs) of the corresponding ETSI standard.

This article on PLMN management describes how they can be updated.

Even though this problem has been resolved a long time ago, in my practice I have not encountered a phone that would offer an interface for editing these settings. So you need to do this with a smart card reader and software that knows which APDU commands to send to the card to make the necessary changes.

Hi there. I'm not following 3G closely but in LTE the encryption schemes are secure. You have two options, both 128 bits: SNOW 3G (inherited from 3G as you can guess ;) and an AES scheme. Both secure as of today. In R10 or R11 a Chinese scheme called ZUC has been added too, also 128 bits. The operator decides on which scheme is used, and the device must support both SNOW 3G and AES today.

The big thing is that the encryption is between the device and cell (base station). The assumption is that the cell is secure, and behind the operator network is secured by other means. So it's important to protect the cell (eNB in LTE) against compromises. A fake cell won't work as in LTE the authentication is mutual: the UE won't work with any cell, except for an emergency call.

For more details have a look at the 3GPP 33.401 spec, for example the latest R9 version.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that mobile apps only need to "support" a subset of features, and that's fine for authoring from scratch. But when you edit existing documents, it can break or drop unsupported features.

For a random example, take http://docbox.etsi.org/usergroup/usergroup/70-drafts/00019/etsi_dtr00019v113.doc. LibreOffice mucks up the first two pages. The version of Polaris Office in my tab just crashes.

The (sad) alternative right now is RDP/VNC into a real PC and struggle with virtual mice and whatnot. You will likely have to do it for other apps anyway.

The DVB standard ETSI ETS 300 743 defines a method for transmitting Teletext data over a DVB (MPEG-TS) stream. This method is used in the DVB countries which maintain the old Teletext service alongside with the digital broadcasts. DVB set-top boxes and TV sets with an integrated DVB receiver/decoder commonly include a Teletext browser.

UK has chosen to abolish Teletext in favor of an MHEG-5 based information service – known as the “red button” service by the viewers. However, this does not mean it wouldn't have been technically possible to carry the full Ceefax Teletext service over DVB broadcasts in the UK as well: the local broadcasting companies just chose not to do it.

Broadcasters in some countries – such as Finland and Italy – have experimented with providing a similar information service through the more ambitious, Java-based MHP, instead of MHEG-5. But in Finland, at least, these experiments have failed due to unenthusiastic response from the STB makers and the general public. (The MHP services were probably introduced at a too early stage, and it was partially a PR failure as well.) Instead, regular Teletext service is still being broadcast on many local DVB channels using the method defined in ETSI ETS 300 743.

I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income

Simply put, it's because companies whose patents were made into GSM and 3G specs have signed legal documents like this one, while Apple did not. FRAND is voluntary - it doesn't automatically apply to your patents unless you declare that it does (but most standard organizations require that you do that if you propose a standard, implementing which requires a patent that you hold).

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102000_102099/102006/01.03.02_60/ts_102006v010302p.pdf

The patent in question is EP 1010336 (B1) (aka US patent 6,359,898 - it is more often referenced via its EP number because the court cases have happened mostly in Europe so far).

And here is Motorola's ETSI IPR declaration of this patent as "essential" for GPRS - the link at the bottom is to the PDF of the declaration form. It lists the patent in question among several others, and has the following verbiage at the beginning:

It is my belief that the IPRs listed in Annex 2 are, or are likely to become, Essential IPRs in relation to that Standard [GRPS].

The signatory and/or its affiliates hereby declare that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential.

Finally, here is the ETSI IPR policy:

6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the Page 35 ETSI Rules of Procedure, 30 November 2011 owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:

- MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
- sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
- repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
- use METHODS.

The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.

In the event a MEMBER assigns or transfers ownership of an ESSENTIAL IPR that it disclosed to ETSI, the MEMBER shall exercise reasonable efforts to notify the assignee or transferee of any undertaking it has made to ETSI pursuant to Clause 6 with regard to that ESSENTIAL IPR.

The patent in question is EP 1010336 (B1) (aka US patent 6,359,898 - it is more often referenced via its EP number because the court cases have happened mostly in Europe so far).

And here is Motorola's ETSI IPR declaration of this patent as "essential" for GPRS - the link at the bottom is to the PDF of the declaration form. It lists the patent in question among several others, and has the following verbiage at the beginning:

It is my belief that the IPRs listed in Annex 2 are, or are likely to become, Essential IPRs in relation to that Standard [GRPS].

The signatory and/or its affiliates hereby declare that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential.

Finally, here is the ETSI IPR policy:

6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the Page 35 ETSI Rules of Procedure, 30 November 2011 owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:

- MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
- sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
- repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
- use METHODS.

The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.

In the event a MEMBER assigns or transfers ownership of an ESSENTIAL IPR that it disclosed to ETSI, the MEMBER shall exercise reasonable efforts to notify the assignee or transferee of any undertaking it has made to ETSI pursuant to Clause 6 with regard to that ESSENTIAL IPR.

The European Telecommunications Standards Institute's search page is at:
http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp
Search for "pades" in the title will get you the five parts of the standard (well, Technical Specification).

ETSI TS 102 778-x

And thank goodness it's ETSI doing this, since they publish their standards without charge.

Strictly speaking, DVB-T defines only the transmission aspects. As such, DVB-T2 may introduce notable changes but it seems to still use the MPEG-2 transport stream and thus will likely refer to the same specifications as DVB-T. It is true that as far as codecs are concerned it was not until 2005 (publication date of ETSI TS 101 154 V1.6.1) that optional support for improved AV codecs was introduced (H.264/AVC and HE AAC, with VC-1 added in version 1.8.1). However, aside from the resulting chicken-or-egg problem, this does not preclude DVB-T stations from using the newer codecs, and some are already doing so.

I too feel that the deployment is somewhat shoddy, but the theory is that there is no need to wait for a big change because buying a new decoder is relatively inexpensive. I don't quite agree because apart from being wasteful it is consumer-unfriendly to discover that an HD TV set sold as DVB-capable doesn't support some (HD) content because of the codec (beside the fact that it might not support HD DVB-T streams at all depending on whether it is HD ready, HD TV, Full HD or whatever the current marketspeak is), and that after somehow upgrading to get over that deficiency one is bound to learn that the system still doesn't support MHP or whatever technology under the DVB umbrella gets highlighted in the following months.

Strictly speaking, DVB-T defines only the transmission aspects. As such, DVB-T2 may introduce notable changes but it seems to still use the MPEG-2 transport stream and thus will likely refer to the same specifications as DVB-T. It is true that as far as codecs are concerned it was not until 2005 (publication date of ETSI TS 101 154 V1.6.1) that optional support for improved AV codecs was introduced (H.264/AVC and HE AAC, with VC-1 added in version 1.8.1). However, aside from the resulting chicken-or-egg problem, this does not preclude DVB-T stations from using the newer codecs, and some are already doing so.

I too feel that the deployment is somewhat shoddy, but the theory is that there is no need to wait for a big change because buying a new decoder is relatively inexpensive. I don't quite agree because apart from being wasteful it is consumer-unfriendly to discover that an HD TV set sold as DVB-capable doesn't support some (HD) content because of the codec (beside the fact that it might not support HD DVB-T streams at all depending on whether it is HD ready, HD TV, Full HD or whatever the current marketspeak is), and that after somehow upgrading to get over that deficiency one is bound to learn that the system still doesn't support MHP or whatever technology under the DVB umbrella gets highlighted in the following months.

The key point not brought out in TFA is that the rainfall prediction scheme is not based on the link from the handset to the cell tower, but on the wireless backhaul links of the cellular system. The backhaul link is the link from the cell tower to the rest of the world (or at least the phone system of the rest of the world)--in many places in the world it is fiber or some other line, but increasingly often it, too, is wireless, using something called digital fixed radio systems (DFRS; check out standard EN 301 751 at ETSI).

The wireless backhaul links are much better for the meterological application than the handset link, because:
(a) It's a fixed link; since the cell towers don't move, like the handsets do, the location of the link, and therefore the rain, is known, and
(b) It's at a much higher frequency. The DFRS links used in this paper are at 8-23 GHz, much higher than the 0.8-1.9 GHz (depending on your local regulatory environment) of the handset link. This is important because rain attenuation increases as the signal frequency increases; it would be quite difficult to reliably detect rain fades at the handset frequencies (although in a bad enough storm--a cyclone comes to mind--it's probably possible; TFA notes the anecdotal evidence of fading television signals in bad weather).

I note in passing that the web-based supplimental material to the article references a US patent application, # 60/698,491.

You are correct. ETSI document EN 300 743 describes the subtitle stream specification, which includes both RLE subtitle image data, and actual character codes.

The specification can be found here: http://webapp.etsi.org/action%5COP/OP20021004/en_3 00743v010201o.pdf

Teletext doesn't work either.

Teletext works just fine with DVB [1]. The powers-that-be have decided that the UK people won't need Teletext on digital, but other DVB countries are free to make their own decisions. For example, in Finland, all main digital channels have a full Teletext service - just like their analogue counterparts.

_____

[1] See ETSI EN 300 472: Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Specification for conveying ITU-R System B Teletext in DVB bitstreams .

One of the largest problems I currently see is in the area of victim and missing registration. I wrote twice about it in my blog. I first made the following analysis: Like everybody I am following the news on the tsunami and I noticed a couple of things that got me thinking. After a disaster there are generally two major questions that need to be answered. 1. Who survived, got injured, died, is missing? 2. What relief is needed, where and who provides it?

To answer the first question there are two systems that I found with a bit of googling: A Japanese group has build a system.
Their presentation to ETSI can be found here. It has a great name: I Am Alive. This system seems to be currently in use by the Thai governement and Red Cross.

The Australian governement has a system which is described here by the Red Cross which is using it. The system is called the National Registration and Inquiry System (NRIS).

I have seen the results of the the I Am Alive-system and it looks like an
excellent system. It would be great if they could get some global support to further develop this system. At this moment it seems only Japan is working on this system and a quick search on Google didn't point too many English language pages on the system. I'll see if I can find some information on it.

I imagine every ministery of Interior, or government emergency response organisation should have a copy always ready and available on a webserver. So whenever there is a disaster this system is already running and can be used to register all the countries nationals potentially involved and can then later be used to compare these data with the records of the country affected. Maybe the United Nations Reliefweb website could be used as a basis.

The United Nations Reliefweb is also a great resource on all kinds of relief efforts and it gives good information on what kind of resources and people are nescessary.

The standard in used in most of Europe for digital terrestial broadcast is DVB-T (DVB-S, DVB-C are used for satellite and cable). It's possible to run HDTV video over these.

Also as far as I'm aware most other countries have adopted DVB-T for digital terrestial signals with a few exceptions.

As for if it has any mystic Broadcast flags defined, I couldn't really say, I've only looked at the standards concerning new information encoded into the MPEG-TS stream (epg and such). There however is a variety of tuner cards that work in linux. Xine and mplayer have support for them and xawtv 4 will have a software mpeg-2 decoder for this use.

I believe the standards are available for download at http://www.etsi.org/

See http://www.linuxtv.org/ for the drivers.

Oh, come on. The Internet survived the US for decades, I doubt the UN (i.e. the good folks that brought us international telecommunications standardization) would kill it any time soon.

The UN did what? You may wish to give much credit to ETSI, which has nothing to do with the UN. Except that the US bypassed it unilaterally hence being practically the only country in the world that has mobiles not conforming to the GSM standard (and we've seen enough slashdot posts confirming what a bad move that was).

Phillip.

Is the frequency band at 24 GHz actually licensed for automotive radar systems?
According to this press release it's not licensed in parts of Europe.
And in the US, there is only a temporary license.
I haven't found an unbiased summary yet - the referenced press release is from a working group of companies in the automotive industry.
This summary says that the frequence is reserved for radio astronomy and similar users.

You'll see that in all cases, the "S" stands for Symmetric.

I worked at a telco where we generated C code on the fly from high level Structured Definition Language for the main call control processing.

It was a great idea... in theory. In theory, it was impossible for the implementation to get out of sync with the detailed design (the SDL). In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. Some of the features that we had to add simply couldn't be modelled in SDL, plus there were performance issues, and it produced ugly source.

It was used for fifteen years (yeah, pre-ANSI), but it eventually collapsed under the weight of all of the hacks that were required to work around the limitations. We eventually had to admit that the behaviour of the complete source (generated plus all the stuff around it) was now so different from that defined by the SDL that it was no longer worth putting up with the limitations of the SDL.

In the end, we just took a snapshot of the generated code and set developers free to actually fix it rather than hack around it. At that point, there were only a few people left who even knew SDL, so there were very few tears shed. The rest of us cheered, and the product got significantly cleaner as we refactored the bejeesus out of all the generated C and removed the hacks.

I'd recommend giving code generation a try, but don't be ruled by it. Once the product is mature, if the code generation is limiting you, then don't be afraid to drop it and fix the lower level generated code.

"The Association said an upgrade to the A5/2 encryption algorithm, available since July 2002, addresses the security weaknesses highlighted by the Israelis."

• ARIB - Japan
• CWTS - China
• ETSI - Europe
• T1 - US
• TTA - Korea
• TTC - Japan

They are interested in using SIP for 3rd generation wireless technologies.

(Hmmm. Have to see if I can get the spec, and see if I can write a decoder for it....)

If you really want the spec visit the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) website, search for Digital Radio Mondiale, register for free and download the system specification.

(Hmmm. Have to see if I can get the spec, and see if I can write a decoder for it....)

If you really want the spec visit the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) website, search for Digital Radio Mondiale, register for free and download the system specification.

What? You think governments cannot tap into your POTS conversations? I worked for a "foreign" telecom company and there was a project to develop Lawful Interception capabilities on high speed ATM swtiches. It is required by US law and that of many other countries, so if you want to sell in those markets you have to provide the ability to intercept telecommunications on your equipment.

Check out the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to see that is is not just the US government that requires this capability.

In the UK, we already have this feature - even for analog VCRs. It's called PDC (Programme Delivery Control).

A google turned up this explanation of how it works.

The actual standard is also available (free registration required).

Of course, this is only for analog TV. Digital TV already has some information which could be used for this (Event Information Tables - EIT) but I don't know if any integrated digital reciever/PVR combos use it.

The authorities have always known the obvious solution. I have been using WIPO.org.uk as the best domain name to get the message out ;-)

The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC.gov) are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem.

The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, August 22, 2000: "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."

A restricted TLD is required to replace the trademark symbol. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panelist judge.

This is very important, as virtually every word is trademarked - Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.

For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the USA alone. Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

The US Department of Commerce allow this conflict to continue purposefully, knowing they abridge peoples right to use these words - even the common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. You cannot make your own small business using a dictionary word, it is bound to conflict with some trademark or other - check yourself. People also cannot make fan sites or protest about corporations (one of reasons why they do not want it). This violates the American Department of Commerce own First Amendment.

The authorities are allowing certain trademarks to be abused by their owners, giving them dominance over others using same words. Example; Caterpillar tractors claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet - even though there are hundreds of trademarks using the word 'cat' - IN THE U.S. ALONE. The United States Department of Commerce and the World Intellectual Property Organization do not seem to mind that all trademarks fight it out - or that one has this illegal dominant position. This is against unfair competition law.

For the TM lawyers - yes, I know about classifications. Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with UN WIPO.org.

"EU government systems"

The EU has their Europa site running for a fair few years, but I wouldn't exactly call them a government, they have their parliaments and (largely unelected) members but their power is limited to arguing and bickering amongst themselves, they have no real impact on anybody apart from draining a few billion from the member states, but having a talking shop full of self-edifying people is cheaper than war.

The Council of Europe have quite a nice site too, it's very useful for finding out about their latest facist policies such as the cybercrime treaty. It's great for marveling how unelected groups can wield so much power. The CoE actually banned MEP's from their committies because they weren't invited to take part in forming policy, so you ban the already spuriously electec individuals from a nonelected group that decides your laws, shameless, how I love the EU.

Of course non of these sites are useful for practical matters such as paying taxes registering your child for school etc, because the EU doesn't actually do anything remotely practical apart from inventy abstract laws that are largely ignored by all member states apart from Britain or Germany.

I do however hold the technical groups such as the ETSI, Eureka in high regard.

ETSI BRAN's Hiperlan 2 standard provides guarantees for time-sensitive data (and has support for a lot of other features which make it much more suitable than 802.11a for providing widespread network infrastructure - things like frequency selection, control of transmit level).

ETSI BRAN's Hiperlan 2 standard provides guarantees for time-sensitive data (and has support for a lot of other features which make it much more suitable than 802.11a for providing widespread network infrastructure - things like frequency selection, control of transmit level).

GSM is a digital communications standard that is not limited to frequencys.

Correct. Just allow me to fix and add some other data:

US uses:
824MHz - 894MHz for "Cellular" (824-849MHz Phone->BaseStation, 869-894MHz BaseStation->Phone), using AMPS (analog), TDMA/IS136(or ANSI-136) and CDMA/IS95 (digital), with some IS136 operators testing GSM 800.

806MHz - 866MHz for "SMR" - iDEN/Nextel (806-821MHz Ph->BS, 851-866 BS->Ph)

1850-1990MHz for "PCS" (1850-1910MHz Ph->BS, 1930-1990MHz BS->Ph), using CDMA, TDMA/IS136, and GSM (GSM was up and running in Europe when PCS appeared in the US. I know that "GSM standard is part of the PCS standard" was not exactly what you meant, but...)

Europe (and others) use:
880-960MHz (880-915MHz, 925-960MHz), and 1710-1880MHz (1710-1785MHz, 1805-1880MHz) for GSM.

Europe was a mess of different systems, and they've cleverly converged to GSM. The USA once had mostly AMPS, then diverged to a mess of different systems. Clever.

GSM was the result of a planned evolution; a list of desired features drove the engineering, and it always offered more features to the user than the American digital standards, which were likely driven by a "let's do something digital quick, before someone does it and get the market". Example: for many years IS95 and IS136 had NO FAX/DATA capabilities, while GSM had 9600 (this was fast, one day).

The number of GSM subscribers in Europe alone is much bigger than the number of all technologies subscribers (analog and digital) in all America (South, Central and North, including the USA ;)).

Although GSM 1900 require more BaseStations than Cellular 800 due to less propagation of higher frequencies, it is not true for GSM 800 or GSM 900, coverage-wise.

GSM does have less conversations per MHz of freq.band than IS136 and IS95 (that may not be true if using half-rate channels, with lower audio quality), but the GSM infrastructure is normally cheaper than the ones for IS136 and IS95 (because in a way, GSM Base Stations are dummier than the IS136/IS95 ones), so operators can deploy more GSM sites than IS136/IS95 with the same money.

True, CDMA is the future, and a technologically superior solution (bear in mind that IS95 is CDMA, but CDMA is NOT IS95). Even GSM will probably migrate to a CDMA solution in the future (***CDMA is not IS95***).

GSM is a "open system" standard (ok, unless you want to design all the chips and algorithms from scratch, you DO have to pay royalties to someone if you manufacture a GSM phone or Base Station using them)

If you want to download the GSM standards (or part of it - it's probably about 10,000 pages by now), you can do it for free at etsi.

If you want to have or use the IS95 standards you have to pay (eia/tia). Although the IS95 (AKA CDMAone) standard is open (for ~360USD), the technology is Qualcomm proprietary.

By the way, Brazil had followed USA on the 800MHz band (we're mainly IS136 and IS95, few hard-headed AMPS users left), but our "PCS" will be GSM 1800 (European frequency). I have no complains about my IS136 phone or operator, but I'll be the first in line when they start selling GSM 1800 (like I was, for IS136).

Read the ETSI documents available to the public to learn more about it.

PS: This is a really bad time to talk about mobile telephony because this happens.

Message to WIPO & ICANN from WIPO.org.uk (SWIPO.org)

WIPO & ICANN care nothing for the LAW:

Ask any trademark attorney about the proper use of a trademark. It has to be set apart by special typeface or script. And use "tm" for an unregistered mark and "®" for a registered mark.

The Domain Naming System (DNS) encompasses all words - it is NOT a Trademark System (ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System).

ICANN - this means you cannot have a dispute resolution that does not include a tag - i.e. .REG or similar. What you are doing is unlawful.

Guide to European Competition Law

2. Abuses of dominant position (Article 82)

Article 82 prohibits the abuse of the dominant position of a company which negatively affect the trade between Member States.

2.2. What are the prohibited practices under Article 82?

c) Abuse of intellectual property rights

The mere existence of a patent, trademark or copyright is not sufficient to establish a dominant position.

WIPO - this means you cannot pass on these names, only one may use it, else you are giving trademark a dominant position on the Internet. Many others may have the name trademarked also. Have you not heard of "Unfair Competition" laws? What you are doing is unlawful.

It all comes down to the old chestnut that IP is a best effort service, and the need to find a scalable solution that allows the reservation of bandwidth (Diffserv is scalable, but does not allow bandwidth reservation, only relative QoS, wheras RSVP allows bandwidth reservation but does not scale well).

regards, treefrog