IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com> Thu, 20 March 2008 11:19 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 A1F0E3A691C; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, 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 rE+09Jr-TcRC; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FFB3A69C8; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:19:31 -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 1FFEC3A69BB for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:19:27 -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 IEdv7dpCv-6Y for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail12.telekom.de (tcmail12.telekom.de [217.5.214.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7F928C3A1 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de (s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de [10.151.180.168]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:16:41 +0100
Received: from S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.10]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:16:40 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:18:05 +0100
Message-Id: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CFC834B@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <BCD7CDE949BE4CC896D2B5CCF5B49D17@ibmPC>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
Thread-Index: AciKUHTGZ9BmSgQ0REOEjQjU515mCwAKU3pQ
References: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B07061F5BD2@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> <BCD7CDE949BE4CC896D2B5CCF5B49D17@ibmPC>
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
To: weigengyu@vip.sina.com, acharny@cisco.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2008 11:16:40.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF2C92F0:01C88A7B]
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 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email