IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [PCN] Architecture draft - probing section & general updates.

"Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com> Tue, 30 October 2007 09:17 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 1ImnES-00027S-7y; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:17:56 -0400
Received: from pcn by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ImnER-00026X-AS for pcn-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:17:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImnER-00026P-0w for pcn@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:17:55 -0400
Received: from tcmail31.telekom.de ([217.6.95.238]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImnEK-000067-NE for pcn@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:17:55 -0400
Received: from S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:17:38 +0100
Received: from S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.10]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:17:38 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PCN] Architecture draft - probing section & general updates.
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:17:37 +0100
Message-Id: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C4C1390@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <9671A92C3C8B5744BC97F855F7CB646512DFE32B@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PCN] Architecture draft - probing section & general updates.
Thread-Index: AcgW7SC2PEVcOi1+Qg+vZ1UxgSPGoQDfIixAABpXZpA=
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
To: babiarz@nortel.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2007 09:17:38.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70F5250:01C81AD5]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

Hello Joe,

Thanks for your clarification.

|locations (branch offices). PCN is run inside the enterprise network
|including WAN links which may be tunneled across the carrier network.
|Carrier network is not required to support PCN as the enterprise
traffic
|including PCN marking is tunneled, however it could.  

I'm more interested in a PCN scenario interconnecting carrier
application 
servers or edge nodes. That way, sufficiently high numbers of flows may 
result to have a relatively good perception of the congestion status 
of the network.

Corporate networks allow for any to any communication, but the question
is, 
whether all are used for it. Within my own corporation, I largely 
communicate with 4 centers and randomly call say 6 other destinations,
one 
of which is outside of my home country. My company is active worldwide
and 
has a huge number of PoPs. Most of my colleagues have similar
communication 
patterns.

Regards,

Rudiger


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

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status