Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F0421F95EA for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 hvUed4QorSuH for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776AA21F9579 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id d10so2995643qca.9 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=C+f1Ktc/baSNSILYJfgmnCQnctOThNoi6AiRhIrF7tQ=; b=fr8CzuqcZP9PJzAgpp582UuCm+OwekEyvHGkwtkJNwcfSjbrF4ZMVC7VN+82uY+xIV qXGg4jX8mxnXAf+o5t+FD8QLriIB2xSwJC+SvhV2wuXj71FmBKhZ3c3Cyfe0o9cyEtwf zhxBSov91a0A4XlcyZdx3RaZsD4cMgq1H5MeGaGia9g7DsBiKTFt9vwWEmTEYALcFhCi R/HIqhh8d5ha9y2I1E7pq+wEQs/qQa7lkYc540cXu+PONW9J9JT8OzCdQHWuYq1Cw7Su 6LtaQL/rfYLb73/WuaqK8+M13xITN8ygJJ+PhUOVaVluoFgGL3svosfSF8W/wWMHnn4p jFUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.104.145 with SMTP id ge17mr45275674qeb.59.1367208015876; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.164.199 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0C678C21-ECDD-4249-9DBB-B120DEE8613F@vpnc.org> References: <0C678C21-ECDD-4249-9DBB-B120DEE8613F@vpnc.org> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:30:15 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vishwas Manral To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d8fc51ef20804db77ec8c Cc: IPsecme WG , "maoyu@h3c.com" , Toby Mao Subject: Re: [IPsec] One comment to this draft//Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-06.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:00:17 -0000 --047d7b5d8fc51ef20804db77ec8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Toby, I absolutely understand the rational of where you are coming from. I agree with questions raised by Paul - we need to be characterize the requirement a bit further. I know QoS is important especially if there is an overload of traffic with multiple different use cases. However do we see it any different from any other VPN we currently run? I agree policing, shaping, marking etc are mechanisms to implement QoS and are important. May be the requirement would be to specify the capability to do fine grained QoS on a per peer basis on the Hub. Sounds reasonable? Thanks, Vishwas On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > These requirements might be useful to add in the next draft, but they need > to be refined. > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Toby Mao wrote: > > > The ADVPN solution SHOULD be able to implement Quality of Service (QoS) > to regulate the traffic in the ADVPN topology. > > Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN > solution would be *prevented* from implementing some sort of QoS because it > was an ADVPN? > > > ADVPN peer SHOULD NOT send excessive traffic to the other members of > ADVPN. > > How would you define "excessive"? Where would that measurement be done? > > > The traffic for each ADVPN peer CAN be measured individually for shaping > and policing. > > Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN > solution would be *prevented* from measuring individually? > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > --047d7b5d8fc51ef20804db77ec8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Toby,
=A0
I absolutely underst= and the rational of where you are coming from. I agree with questions raise= d by Paul - we need to be characterize the requirement a bit further.=A0
=A0
I know=A0QoS is important especially if there is an over= load of traffic with multiple different use cases. However do we see it any= different from any other VPN we currently run? I agree policing, shaping, = marking etc=A0are mechanisms to implement QoS and are important. May be the= requirement would be to specify the capability to do fine grained QoS on a= per peer basis on the Hub. Sounds reasonable?
=A0
Thanks,
Vishwas


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:27 PM,= Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
These requirements might be useful to add in= the next draft, but they need to be refined.

On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Toby Mao <yumao9@gmail.com> wrote:

> The ADVPN solution SHOULD be able to implement Quality of Service (QoS= ) to regulate the traffic in the ADVPN topology.

Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN so= lution would be *prevented* from implementing some sort of QoS because it w= as an ADVPN?

> ADVPN peer SHOULD NOT send excessive traffic to the other members of A= DVPN.

How would you define "excessive"? Where would that measurem= ent be done?

> The traffic for each ADVPN peer CAN be measured individually for shapi= ng and policing.

Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN so= lution would be *prevented* from measuring individually?

--Paul Hoffman
_____________________= __________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

--047d7b5d8fc51ef20804db77ec8c--