[PCN] PCN edge behaviour experiment

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 20 March 2012 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC1321F84EC for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AV3b8P0L3HnZ for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E58121F846E for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so518935ghb.31 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus :x-antivirus-status; bh=4otYHTiF8BH06NKgsFMq1uouDSPKvSzgskT0HwhBg6U=; b=tjZHpx8z2JaQGAt1SX9D1bc267sAya74h+hwf9pHEQJKxM1YPDbVQqZJ9qDIP+8aUq GZGqEuYTvTFFcoGfEefHJyYX3yAFS0VmS3yevosg3d3s3BfMQqcp/RvvR46bPYMEza5H 2pO4f7cqa3OSCl2BguttTvZCaEQcn7mcGt/g0KdeIe/rid2CyeeBDnpXSXRu9WuCmbkr 1XBNngNI2entjN8Ul/y78D3fntGudWNWfYER7frBX4rf/8Jwth7orjdeb/nkiMQfbphG 1Ngq6SC6AVbUxiucn4djgGPx1w+6ubjcl6+1TqMG3MgfHK1x0verSuYU6vORMaCwD4LW sZ7g==
Received: by 10.236.157.9 with SMTP id n9mr1255227yhk.96.1332274737082; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-3-29.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.3.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b4sm3188142anb.22.2012.03.20.13.18.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F68E62E.9080502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:18:54 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pcn <pcn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120320-0, 20/03/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: [PCN] PCN edge behaviour experiment
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:18:58 -0000

I am making what I trust will be the final revisions to the edge 
behaviour documents in response to IESG comments. Amongst other things, 
this is the text I propose to add in the introduction to justify the 
Experimental status of the documents. The text will be the same for CL 
and for SM, following on Ruediger's observation that both behaviours are 
valid in different contexts. Comments are welcomed.

---

This document describes an experimental edge node behaviour to implement 
PCN in a network. The experiment may be run in a network in which a 
substantial proportion of the traffic carried is in the form of 
inelastic flows and where admission control of micro-flows is applied at 
the edge. For the effects of PCN to be observable, at least some links 
of the network should be running near or at capacity. The amount of 
effort required to prepare the network for the experiment (see Section 
5.1) may constrain the size of network to which it is applied. The 
purposes of the experiment are:

- to validate the specification of the CL [SM] edge behaviour;

- to evaluate the effectiveness of the CL [SM] edge behaviour in
   preserving quality of service for admitted flows; and

- to evaluate PCN's potential for reducing the amount of capital and
   operational costs in comparison to alternative methods of assuring
   quality of service.

For the first two objectives, the experiment should run long enough for 
the network to experience sharp peaks of traffic in at least some 
directions. It would also be desirable to observe PCN performance in the 
face of failures in the network. A period in the order of a month or two 
in busy season may be enough. The third objective is more difficult, and 
could require observation over a period long enough for traffic demand 
to grow to the point where additional capacity must be provisioned at 
some points in the network.