Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:23 +0100, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:

> Hi Steven
> 
> Regarding Question Q1, I think that, from my point of view, it is Yes!
> 
> 
> Before answering questions Q2 and Q3, I would like that 
> some questions/comments should be clarified.
> 
> Question Q2:
> I consider that an experimental-track extension for another 
> PCN scheme that uses only two encoding states should also be allowed.
> Is this option also included in the question.

My intent with the question is that any experimental-track proposals
would be extensions of the standards-track scheme.  I believe that is
the sense that others understood as well.

> Question Q3:
> According to the current version of the PCN architecture, 
> The PCN scheme should also be able to support the admission control and flow
> termination
> detection and handling (selection of the flows to be terminated) at the
> egress.
> SM and CL-PHB cannot support the handling (selection of the flows to be
> terminated) 
> at the egress. This means that such a PCN scheme should also be allowed,
> i.e., as 
> an experimental-track extension.

I don't understand why neither SM or CL-PHB can support egress-based
flow termination, *assuming that the egress node has flow state* (which
is presumed if we are not tunneling).

> Furthermore, according to the previous discussions on the PCN mailing list, 
> I think that care should be taken on the way of how preferential dropping is
> used 
> wthin the PCN domain. In other words, preferetial dropping of marked packet 
> should not be mandated.

Regards,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven Blake                <steven.blake@ericsson.com>
Ericsson/Redback Networks               +1 919-472-9913

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