RE: [PCN] Architecture draft

Ruediger, the issue is not addition of one more flow into the link that
is experiencing (pre-)congestion level for admission but potentially
hundreds of new ingress-egress aggregates that have not been established
passing through the link. 

Regards, Joe
email:babiarz@nortel.com
Telephone:613-763-6098

-----Original Message-----
From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com] 
Sent: October 23, 2007 4:19 AM
To: philip.eardley@bt.com
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PCN] Architecture draft - probing section & general
updates.

Phil,

I appreciate that probing is optional. I understand that to mean that
standardisation allows to operate PCN within a domain without having to
support any probing functionality.

There may be operational conditions, when probing makes sense. This may
be the case, if the number of multiplexed flows is at the lower bound of
the range where statistical multiplexing can be applied on any link and
the number of possible ingress to egress relations passing this link is
big enough to lead to (pre-)congestion by admission of a single flow
with a reasonable probability. I don't want to stop people from working
on this issue, but I'd favour PCN to finish standards for an operational
environment where the probability of a single admitted flow causing
congestion on a link is extremly low. 

Regards,

Rudiger

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

RE: [PCN] Architecture draft - probing section & general updates.