[PCN] (no subject)
"Lars Westberg" <lars.westberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 02 April 2008 12:56 UTC
Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pcn-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA24A28C502; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCDC28C4FC for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YqrpflF5CduH for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B07128C4D9 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6697120F9E; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:54:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ac898bb00000193b-79-47f381fc4952
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4954C206A7; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:54:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw106.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.69]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:54:19 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:54:19 +0200
Message-ID: <C24C03AE7348E44FB76B34B5D4ED44F5270276@esealmw106.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Index: AciUwKp6sDFsHzDSSPWPGftVEMz2ig==
From: Lars Westberg <lars.westberg@ericsson.com>
To: pcn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2008 12:54:19.0986 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAC70320:01C894C0]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [PCN] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0955277633=="
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, From the PCN architecture draft that I have read and from the discussions that I have followed I see that PCN is currently only supporting the trunk aggregation model, where ingress-egreess-aggregated states are used. Thus each ingress and egress will use per each ingress - egress set one aggregated state. In am concerned about the scalabillity to large networks. This is due to the N^2 trunk mesh of trunks, where N represents the number of edges in a network. I think it would be good if PCN could support the HOSE model, where no aggregation states are used to model a bandwidth limit. Therefore, I would recommend to look into PCN -extention for HOSE type scenario. comments? -lasse
_______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
- [PCN] Why is PCN only supporting trunk (ingress-e… Georgios Karagiannis
- [PCN] (no subject) Lars Westberg