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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wei Gengyu" <weigengyu@vip.sina.com>
To: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting


> Hi, Rudiger,
>
> I have to say some your assumption is not correct.
> For voice custotmer, which is called the subscriber in telecom industry.
>
> When the subscriber come across an unsuccessful call-setup process or 
> break-up,
> and he hears the busy tone, he will hangup first.
>
> But consider what he will do then.
> Most of the subscriber will handoff immediatelly and make a new call.
> This is the real case.
>
> When you measure the SS7 link when a sudden event happens,
> the the number of call attempt may increase sharply, not decrease.
> the number of successful calls decrease if the exchange is highly 
> congested.
> This situation may last more than 60s.
>
>
> What I want to say is the mechanism based on counting the number of 
> packets should be stable even in statistics.
> But the output of count process may not be stable in the case that 
> Georgios gave.
>
> regards,
>
> Gengyu
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
> To: <weigengyu@vip.sina.com>; <acharny@cisco.com>
> Cc: <pcn@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:18 PM
> Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
>
>
> Hi Gengyu, hi Anna
>
> please don't argue over this. It doesn't matter whether it is 80%, 90%
> or 70% loss. Voice customers will hang up and people watching a video
> will turn off. This will reduce the catastrophic overload within
> 10-60 seconds. Standard operation can resume then to the extent
> possible after a catastrophy.
>
> Anna>  Assume now that the link in question has a very high overload.  I
> | > would assume is 5X overload is quite large (Rudiger I am sure will
> | > agree :)), so let us just take 5.  That means that approximately 80%
> | > of traffic of this IEA is dropped at the input, so we end up having
> | > only 0.2K actually leaving this link.
> |
> Genyu| It is wrong.
> | You can not get 0.2K ACTUALLY!
> | And because of this, the following calculation is inredible.
>
> Anna: yes, "5% congestion" is a reasonable assumption for a link congested
> under regular network conditions for engineered carrier backbones (i.e.
> including single outages).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rudiger
> 

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