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

[<[e-mail]>]

> > Q4: Should the standards-track PCN scheme require (as a MUST
implement
> >     feature) that interior PCN routers support Excess-Rate marking,
> >     according to the particular method of handling already marked
> >     packets and drops described in Anna Charny's presentation?
> >     http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/pcn-6.pdf
> >
> 
> Yes. But it ALSO requires the option for preferential dropping of
marked
> packets and an option for random drops with equal importance. 

I believe we need to decide. A standard for marking behaviour with 3
options about dropping is not acceptable. 

As long as
> the edge behavior is not clear yet, no decision about preferential
> dropping can be made. Furthermore, packet size independent marking
> (PSIM) as described in
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcn/draft-menth-pcn-emft-00.txt
> is useful to implement 

suggestion in Philadelphia is that this is a SHOULD (for excess rate
marking).

because the fairness of any flow termination
> scheme making use of marked packets to indicate flows to be terminated
> profits from this feature. Evidence for that is documented in
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-menth-pcn-performance-02.txt
> or
>
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/staff/menth/Publications/Menth08
-
> PCN-MFT.pdf
> 
> This also applies to potential improvements of SM.
> 
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn