Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope
"Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Thu, 23 February 2006 06:28 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC9xu-0002qk-0B; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:28:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC9xt-0002qf-KK for dcpel@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:28:37 -0500
Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl ([130.89.10.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC9xt-0001cA-2G for dcpel@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:28:37 -0500
Received: from zeus.cs.utwente.nl (zeus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.12]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1N6SX3a003108; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:28:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: from janus.cs.utwente.nl (janus [130.89.10.26]) by zeus.cs.utwente.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k1N6SXD8012831; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:28:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from nobody@localhost) by janus.cs.utwente.nl (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2) id k1N6SXb27877; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:28:33 +0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:28:33 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: janus.cs.utwente.nl: nobody set sender to karagian@cs.utwente.nl using -f
To: nichols@pollere.com
Subject: Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope
Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap2.cs.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:28:33 +0000
X-IlohaMail-Blah: karagian@ewi.utwente.nl
X-IlohaMail-Method: mail() [mem]
X-IlohaMail-Dummy: moo
X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl)
Message-ID: <PeqVqMLX.1140676112.7795150.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl>
In-Reply-To: <43FCBCD3.7000504@pollere.com>
From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -5.667 () ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0b5 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:28:35 +0100 (MET)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
Cc: "dcpel@ietf.org" <dcpel@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dcpel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for possible diffserv control plane elements WG <dcpel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel>, <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dcpel>
List-Post: <mailto:dcpel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel>, <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dcpel-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Kathie Thank you very much for your quick reply! Please see in line! On 2/22/2006, "Kathleen Nichols" <nichols@pollere.com> wrote: >Georgios, >> >> Is the scope of starting this BOF/WG the specification of new Per >> Domain Behaviours (PDBs) and the specification of new interfaces that >> can be used by existing signaling protocols (such as NSIS) to >> influence/ manage these PDB's? > >Those items are in the scope of our current proposal. In addition, >we want to have the discussion that will result in specification >of service models and metrics that can be used externally by network >operators to describe their offerings (without exposing the >internal implementations). We've proposed a starting point of >looking at the NSIS Qspec which in turn builds on the ITU Y1554. >However, we don't feel the dcpel effort should be bound to those >metrics if they are not sufficient. > >> Could you specify what do you mean by a distributed Difsserv control >> plane approach? Will this distributed approach impact an individual >> Diffserv router, e.g., a Diffserv core router? > >I'm just giving a short answer here. A distributed DiffServ control >plane is one where the control plane actions do not reside in >one physical location and probably not in one logical location. >We would expect an impact on DiffServ edge routers, but probably >not DiffServ core routers. Georgios: But I suppose that this will of depend on the specified PDBs. What if a PDB requires a control plane support for a core Diffserv router? >Following the model of RFC3290, we >expect to spend time on the QoS agent and the configuration and >management interface. In draft-nichols-dcpel-strawman-arch-00, this is >where we located the DiffServ Control Plane Agent or DCPA. I >believe a longer answer is the work of the proposed working group. >Please note that we have put out some proposals based on our >own work and based on meeting with several folks last November. >The final form of a solution would be an outcome of the consensus >process. > >> From what I know other stardardisation bodies are working for a long time >> already >> on a centralized (bandwidth broker like) architecture/framework. >> Such standardisation bodies are: >> the ITU-t, ETSI-tispan, DSL, packetcable, 3gpp, 3gpp2, ipshere, wimax. >> My question is how is the DCPEL effort related to this work? > >Well, we have contributors and reviewers of our work who are >involved with some of these efforts who still feel IETF work is >needed. Since IETF sets standards and practices for the more general >internet, this seems appropriate to me. However, the IETF framework >for a DCP ought to look at some of these approaches as specific >instances of solutions and it would be good if they fit into the >framework. Unless we come to the consensus opinion that someone >is just doing it wrong! So I would hope we would have some cross- >participation. (I coauthored my first document in this area in >November of 1997, now rfc2638, and one of my coauthors had been >working on the architecture a few years before that, so I think there >is a history in the IETF and the IRTF too). > >The feedback we've gotten is that "something" >is needed and we were told from a provider perspective that >the acknowleged "big problem" is having common notions of the >differentiated services that are openly provided along with >a few examples of how to achieve these. Getting to that point >is clearly best done through the open, consensus-driven, >experience-driven process. Georgios: Maybe it is very useful to perform an extensive state of the art study on the area of centralized control plane architectures that are developed in ITU-t, ETSI-tispan, DSL, packetcable, 3gpp, 3gpp2, ipshere, wimax. The outcome of this state of the art study could then help to define the final charter of the DCPEL BOF/WG. Best Regards, Georgios _______________________________________________ Dcpel mailing list Dcpel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel
- [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Kathleen Nichols
- Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Kathleen Nichols
- Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [Dcpel] questions related to DCPEL scope Paulo Mendes