Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 13 March 2012 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439FA21F87D0 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXLceiJXnHGG for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB4821F87CD for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so662825iaz.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=we2MYj3sP90eLaLEECOC1EJlduN7cNbihQ2+fC4wEBE=; b=YdGHohmHRPp5CL/jhADolAakWxCny9psxeKrkf5+pNXD43oqHxG9uIRqpnw80Vlg/Q 3vV8AlUMxiLzQC77gQSL5GLPTJu65cb11IvCUg1WvcxyLL+Y4iReDNy6EkLEDiqEEOXs S2FbWB+PjLd2QVTnvODKr6atJqKbHbzvP3Ixaoo5EkgLIYTLuKzh/At7ae7khY+0pvtV qFtNBGx8ughsJebPmgpfdufKxTBTiCecbIpREIgy2YRjwSAj7xQaNXL5ItfNMac3RRTA Qv9JYbXWI/zFaw54SiiYrd5WSV4Io0f/oLS3mylGzOqeDLk2fSyG1hi70Zyhf5OMPVOe SpZw==
Received: by 10.50.94.229 with SMTP id df5mr2001882igb.1.1331606847369; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-65-140.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.65.140]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hr6sm10562533igc.8.2012.03.12.19.47.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F5EB53D.3060906@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:47:25 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFF838D.5020704@joelhalpern.com> <BLU0-SMTP18EE1E01EAA97CC44A44FFD8900@phx.gbl> <4F00BAFD.2070201@joelhalpern.com> <4F00CAE1.60103@gmail.com> <4F00E181.7020605@joelhalpern.com> <4F01BD58.1080303@gmail.com> <4F01E15D.6080601@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <4F01E6F5.5080701@joelhalpern.com> <4F01F054.2050301@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <4F01F1AD.8000806@joelhalpern.com> <841FA158-3616-4C9A-ACF4-D8C7CC2A47D3@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <841FA158-3616-4C9A-ACF4-D8C7CC2A47D3@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120312-1, 12/03/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour@tools.ietf.org, Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>, Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, gen-art@ietf.org, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:46:44 -0000

I missed the wording change on the definition of U. I thought there 
should have been a change, but failed to find the right E-mail.

We did make changes based on the ECMP issue.

On 12/03/2012 2:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am very confused about the state of this.  My skimming of the thread seems to indicate at least one unresolved issue.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
>> The clarification on U is very helpful.  I look forward to comments from others on the routing based behavior / ECMP text removal / replacement question.
>>
>> On 1/2/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Menth wrote:
>>> Hi Joel, hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Am 02.01.2012 18:18, schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
>>>> Michael, I am not sure what to make of your recommended text abut ECMP.
>>>> ECMP is used by almost all operators. It is generally considered a
>>>> necessary tool in the tool-kit.
>>>> More significantly, at least for the egress understanding of the
>>>> ingress, it is not even the single operator's ECMP, but other
>>>> operators selections of paths that produce the issue. So even in the
>>>> unlikely event that this operator does not use ECMP, it still is not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> Then I better leave the ECMP issue for others to answer.
>>>
>>> The definition of U can be better corrected as follows (improved
>>> rewording of my previous email):
>>>
>>> U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to
>>> PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain.
>>> ->
>>> U is a domain-wide constant which implicitly defines the
>>> PCN-supportable-rate by U*PCN-admissible-rate on all links of the PCN
>>> domain.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>
...