Re: [PCN] new version LC-PCN draft + conclusions

Hi Phil

My argument was that doing the "1/N" at the PCN-boundary-node instead of the

PCN-interior-node is not good enough!

However, I would like to propose the following:

* Work-out the option of doing 1/N at the PCN-boundary-node. 
* If this option is not good enough to satisfy the requirements for a PCN
deployment scenario like LC-PCN, 
   then allow to work out an experimental specification that can use the 1/N
proportionality 
  at PCN_interior_nodes.

Best regards,
Georgios

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philip.eardley@bt.com [mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com] 
> Sent: woensdag 19 november 2008 3:16
> To: pcn@ietf.org; karagian@cs.utwente.nl
> Subject: RE: [PCN] new version LC-PCN draft + conclusions
> 
> HI Georgios
> response to your third point below.
>  
> this has already been discussed extensively on the mailing 
> list. there seems no benefit to this, because the same system 
> behaviour can be achieved by doing "1/N" behaviour at the 
> PCN-boundary-node instead of at the PCN-interior-node.
>  
> pointers to previous discussion:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn/current/msg01642.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn/current/msg01091.html
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-menth-pcn-emft/
>  
> so i am strongly opposed to including this option in the 
> markng draft. 
>  
> phil
>  
> ----------------------------
> *	Subject: [PCN] new version LC-PCN draft + conclusions 
> *	From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian at cs.utwente.nl 
> <mailto:karagian@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> > 
> *	Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:16:05 +0000 
>  
> Dear all
> 
> Please note that a new version of the LC-PCN draft has been submitted,
> see:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-westberg-pcn-load-co
ntrol-05.txt
> 
> This version contains among other results also the results 
> that were presented during the IETF in Dublin.
> 
> Section 5.8 contains the following experiment conclusions.
> 
>    Based on the results obtained from the experiments presented in
>    Sections 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 this document recommends the following:
> 
>    o  Leave open the option to use PCN_Affected_Marking encoding since
>       it can solve the ECMP problem and it can provide an efficient
>       solution for the HOSE model.  In this document the term HOSE is
>       referring to the aggregation of incoming traffic from 
> all ingress
>       edges, which is associated with one traffic class, i.e., PHB,
>       towards one egress edge.  This type of HOSE model is 
> equivalent to
>       the Multiple to Point (MP2P) type of aggregation.
> 
>    o  Leave open the option of using random dropping in PCN-interior-
>       nodes for PCN_Marking, PCN_Affected_Marking and PCN_unmarked
>       encoded packets.
> 
>    o  Leave open the option of using the parameter N such that the
>       marked excess rate can represent also high level of measured
>       excess rate:
> 
>    **** Implemented by marking every N-th packet (or byte) instead of
>    marking each packet (or byte).
> 
> Best regards,
> Georgios
> 

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn