IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting

"Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Mon, 17 March 2008 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A7C3A6D0F; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UkqYi8pjp1rW; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169AD3A6C02; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B330B3A6CE0 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzkZH4460Gcn for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35623A6C02 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m2H8Y9Hb007160; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:34:24 +0100 (MET)
From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
To: "'Geib, Ruediger'" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
References: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0706181835@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> <RrmbUrJK.1205679770.1867150.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF641B0@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:34:04 +0100
Message-ID: <000001c88809$b2e73840$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF641B0@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AciIBF++zKz17E/GQcib+W/rjB17BgABJ68g
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:34:24 +0100 (MET)
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ruediger

What do you mean?
Do you mean that you do not want to discuss corner cases (ECMP related
cases) that could 
collapse the PCN domain operation?
What I am saying is that if the routers do not preferentially drop marked
packets then
the PCN domain operation is more robust and more stable than in the
situation that the 
router is preferentially dropping marked packets.

Are you saying that this statement is not right?


Best regards,
Georgios
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com] 
> Sent: maandag 17 maart 2008 8:56
> To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
> Cc: pcn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
> 
> Georgios,
> 
> I'm sorry, this is not a serious discussion.
> 
> Stephen, could stuff like this be taken to another mailing list? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rudiger
> 
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian@cs.utwente.nl]
> | Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 4:03 PM
> | To: Anna Charny (acharny); Steven Blake; pcn
> | Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
> | 
> | Hello Anna
> | 
> | Please see some comments in line!
> | 
> | 
> [snip]
> | 
> | Georgios: I will just give you an example:
> | I will describe two situations:
> | Situation 1:
> | Consider that an ingress-egress-aggregate includes flows that are 
> | passing from at least two paths.
> | Assume that path1 supports a maximum bandwidth capacity of C. 
> | Now consider that the maximum bandwdith capacity of path2 is 15*C.
> | Consider also that both paths are fully utilized.
> | 
> | Consider that preferentially marked packets are dropped and 
> that path2 
> | fails.
> | Now assume that all (maximum) traffic passing through path2 will be 
> | rerouted through path1.
> 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email