[PCN] RSVP and ECMP

Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Tue, 23 October 2007 16:15 UTC

Return-path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkMPh-0000XO-4X; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:15:29 -0400
Received: from pcn by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IkMPe-0000T9-AB for pcn-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:15:27 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkMPd-0000O9-0X for pcn@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:15:25 -0400
Received: from wrzx28.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de ([132.187.3.28] helo=mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkMPc-0005ME-KX for pcn@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:15:24 -0400
Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E5DC0B5 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6033C0BA for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from europa.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (wicx01.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.11.1]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F2FC0B5 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nero.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (win3005.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.106.5]) by europa.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (8.11.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id l9NGFLh03771 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:15:21 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nero.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.106.5]) by nero.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C986F591 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:08:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <471E1C5C.5020502@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:07:56 +0200
From: Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Organization: University of Wuerzburg
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pcn@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Subject: [PCN] RSVP and ECMP
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

I've got a question regarding RSVP. PATH messages need to be carried 
over the same path as subsequent data packets. How is this achieved in 
the presence of ECMP routing? In theory, PATH messages can take a 
different route than data packets if the load balancer takes arbitrary 
parts of the header(s) to calculate a suitable hash value, which decides 
which route the packet will take.

This issue seems to be related to the problem of how to make sure that 
PCN probe messages take the same path as subsequent PCN data packets, 
provided that they have the same source and destination ports and addresses.

I am interested in how this problem is solved in practice or whether it 
is intentionally avoided.

Regards,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn



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