[PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn

<karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Sat, 24 March 2012 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998AB21F844C for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=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 L6E1T2pa50ix for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (exedge01.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D20421F844B for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.229) by EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:19:19 +0100
Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.113]) by EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.229]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:19:10 +0100
From: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
To: pcn@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
Thread-Index: Ac0JfaQgQkUC+asmSVG/w7TiQNcc9A==
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:19:09 +0000
Message-ID: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25AD1@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: nl-NL
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [80.60.223.107]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25AD1EXMBX04adutwent_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [PCN] hope changes in PCN drafts will not affect validity assumptions in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:19:13 -0000

Hi all,



>From what I can recall the edge behavior drafts could proceed with their publication based on the assumption that the draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn will be standardized in tsvwg.

Due to some changes that are being implemented lately the validity of two main assumptions in the draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn might not hold anymore.
However, this is not clear to me.
I hope that the validity of the following two main assumptions considered in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn are still valid, without breaking the PCN SM and CL edge behavior specifications:

Assumption 1: More than one IEAs between same pair of PCN edge nodes should be supported, each of them using a different PHB-ID value
Why?: A requesting individual flow has a higher chance to be admitted to an IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state
How? When IEA supported by a PCN-ingress-node is in PCN-admission state, then based on local policy, requesting e2e RSVP session (individual flow) should be either rejected or mapped to another IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state

Assumption 2: PCN-ingress-node should be able to reduce bandwidth of an individual flow without terminating the flow
Why?: flows will not be terminated unnecessary and at the same time the IEA bandwidth is reduced to solve the severe congestion
How?: When for IEA supported by PCN-ingress-node incoming traffic needs to be reduced then:
based on a local policy and for same IEA, selects a number of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) to be either terminated or reserved bandwidth of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) is reduced

If these assumptions are not valid anymore then we might need to do changes in the not yet published PCN drafts!

Best regards,
Georgios