RE: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter -need for clarification
"Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net> Wed, 15 November 2006 15:17 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMW5-0005J4-En; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:17:33 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMW4-0005IK-6y for eme@irtf.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:17:32 -0500
Received: from outbound-mail.lax.untd.com ([64.136.28.164]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMW1-0001sj-RM for eme@irtf.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:17:32 -0500
Received: from webmail43.lax.untd.com (webmail43.lax.untd.com [10.131.27.183]) by smtpout06.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABCXYM4MAW4RYLS for <eme@irtf.org> (sender <fergdawg@netzero.net>); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:16:27 -0800 (PDT)
X-UNTD-OriginStamp: AcganUYbgVGZ0C6nm/9IPatablCmMCeK+QqgkvO5yLeslnl3neL86A==
Received: (from fergdawg@netzero.net) by webmail43.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id L68R4GG3; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:16:14 PST
Received: from [24.23.201.115] by webmail43.lax.untd.com with HTTP: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:16:13 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [24.23.201.115]
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Fergie <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:16:13 +0000
To: francis@cs.cornell.edu
Subject: RE: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter -need for clarification
X-Mailer: Webmail Version 4.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20061115.071614.29020.710043@webmail43.lax.untd.com>
X-ContentStamp: 12:6:1525406629
X-MAIL-INFO: 37f41db454d11dd1d130f4dd55c464e4e45059a0e465f15570752da99931311d74c994b441e09175eda4f454a1941d7d415df415e134f41940c41185955d04
X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.131.27.183|webmail43.lax.untd.com|webmail43.lax.untd.com|fergdawg@netzero.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: eme@irtf.org
X-BeenThere: eme@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <eme.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/eme>
List-Post: <mailto:eme@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: eme-bounces@irtf.org
I'm glad you said it, so I didn't have to. '-) - ferg -- "Paul Francis" <francis@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: I'm not sure it is a good omen that EME is starting off by debating X.25... Why don't I just remove the mention of VCs from the charter ;) Also, I plan to submit a proposed set of requirements in the next couple days. That'll give us something a bit more concrete to discuss. PF From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@wanadoo.fr] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:06 AM To: Scott W Brim Cc: eme@irtf.org Subject: Re: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter -need for clarification The connection-oriented model "per se" doesn't prohibit that intermediate nodes keep more information than necessary for label switching. As a matter of fact, in the Transpac implementation of VCs (Transpac is the X.25 network of France Telecom), ingress and egress nodes keep enough information to re-establish a VC, within the wan, if an intermediate node failure breaks it. The ingress node keeps a copy of enough recent user data so that, when the wan part of the VC is re-established, data that may have been lost on the fly are retransmitted. End nodes are unaware of the failure. Would the ingress-egress protocol used for this be also used E2E, then total recovery.of all intermediate node failures would be achieved. RD -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ EME mailing list EME@irtf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme