[PCN] question on whether assumptions draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt brake PCN CL and PCN SM specs
<karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Fri, 23 March 2012 17:00 UTC
Return-Path: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
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 65E8F21F84B9; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
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 ehADX+Vb7+6j; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (exedge01.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A8421F84AA; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.228) by EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:00:50 +0100
Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.113]) by EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.228]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:00:42 +0100
From: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
To: pcn@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: question on whether assumptions draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt brake PCN CL and PCN SM specs
Thread-Index: Ac0JFnnRmD7ThugwTJ6RFUmxYyQIAQ==
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:00:42 +0000
Message-ID: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C258F2@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.89.12.129]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [PCN] question on whether assumptions draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt brake PCN CL and PCN SM specs
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: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:00:48 -0000
Hi all, The draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt considers that the following two assumptions can be supported without breaking the draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-10.txt and draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-13.txt behaviours. o) More than one IEAs between same pair of PCN edge nodes should be supported, while each of them should use a different PHB-ID value (DSCP value). Why: This is useful for the case that When IEA supported by a PCN-ingress-node is in PCN-admission state, then based on local policy, requesting e2e RSVP session should be either rejected or mapped to another IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state o) When for IEA supported by PCN-ingress-node incoming traffic needs reduced then based on a local policy and for same IEA, selects a number of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) to be either terminated or to reduce reserved bandwidth of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows ), in order to solve congestion in PCN-domain. Why: This is useful, since flows will not be terminated unnecessary, and at the same time the IEA bandwidth is reduced to solve the severe congestion! During the presentation of the initial RSVP over PCN draft during the IETF 81 (tsvwg), if I recall well, it was agreed that these assumptions will not brake these specifications! Please comment on the above! Best regards, Georgios