Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
"Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Wed, 19 March 2008 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D8528C3A7; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fDAWz4w1B45X; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9603F28C0E3; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:41 -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 BF7CA3A6BD2 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 pyI64qVONXdW for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED8928C0E3 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m2JCZIgB020265; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:35:21 +0100 (MET)
From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
To: "'Geib, Ruediger'" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
References: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0706181835@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com><RrmbUrJK.1205679770.1867150.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF641B0@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><000001c88809$b2e73840$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF6423C@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><001301c88816$114dab60$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF644B1@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><000001c88835$998bcf60$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF6451A@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><000601c8883b$e3828950$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF64580@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><000901c88844$f35c1130$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF645A3@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><000a01c8884d$081c9790$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl><1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF64645@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de><1205849919.9521.7.camel@neutrino> <1B6169C658325341A3B8! ! ! 066E23919E1CF64B8 A@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> <002901c889b5$ad4671a0$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF64C3B@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:35:13 +0100
Message-ID: <003501c889bd$b07549c0$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF64C3B@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
Thread-Index: AciJAvohbA2GphQvQLWjFvOYYSGt+QAo6JrgAAOauuAAAN9DsAABQa1g
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:35:21 +0100 (MET)
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Ruediger It is not a new solution! What I describe are problems that are in my opinion occuring when the PCN domain uses ECMP routing, AND when a catastrophic event occurs AND when marked packets are preferentially dropped. The only thing that I am trying to say, is PLEASE DO NOT mandate the preferentially dropping of marked packets, such that we can avoid such difficult and nasty problems. I am not proposing here another solution. Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com] > Sent: woensdag 19 maart 2008 13:06 > To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting > > Hi Georgios, > > with how many operator representatives involved into backbone > traffic engineering including activation of ECMP did you talk > prior to proposing your solution on this mailing list? > > Regards, > > Rudiger > > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian@cs.utwente.nl] > | Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:38 PM > | To: Geib, Rüdiger; steven.blake@ericsson.com > | Cc: pcn@ietf.org > | Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting > | > | Hi Rudeiger > | > | What I am proposing is how to achieve a robust/stable PCN operation > | when the PCN domain uses ECMP routing and when a catastrophic event > | occurs. > | > | Best regards, > | Georgios > | > | > | > | > | > | > -----Original Message----- > | > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On > | Behalf Of > | > Geib, Ruediger > | > Sent: woensdag 19 maart 2008 11:37 > | > To: steven.blake@ericsson.com > | > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > | > Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting > | > > | > Steven, > | > > | > what Georgios is proposing is to optimise PCN so that it works > | > properly if a catastrophic event coincides with a misconfigured > | > router. > | > > | > If this is the main or even an important task of PCN, then > | I waste my > | > time here. > | > > | > The salary I obtain monthly depends on my companies > | backbone network > | > providing good service to customers under regular operational > | > conditions (which cover planned outages and expectable > | failures). The > | > telephony or streaming services offered to our customers should > | > experience a minimised network impact on the Quality of > Experience > | > perceived by the consumers under regular operational > | conditions. This > | > includes the creation of a "Network Busy Indication", which > | however is > | > a rare event. So my position on what PCN should be > | optimised for is to > | > create this "network busy indication" for regular operational > | > conditions, reliably and only if it is required. > | > This should be done with the least possible complexity > | (like the least > | > possible flow awareness, the least codepoint consumption, simple > | > queuing/policing and measurement functions, utmost re-use > | of allready > | > implemented features). > | > > | > To clarify what I mean by a rare event: a well engineered > backbone > | > creating a PCN network busy indication either during a > main traffic > | > hour or after a re-routing event. During ISDN times, engineering > | > resulted in what Americans called 5ESS switches, aiming on > | a network > | > busy indication probability of (100 - 99,999%, the 5 > nines). We may > | > see that a bit more relaxed for IP networks, but I don't > think the > | > customers of my company should experience the consequences of PCN > | > behaviour more often than in (100 - 99,x)%. > | > > | > I don't look at PCN as a replacement of network > engineering, it is > | > rather an add on to guarantee service quality of admitted > users by > | > stopping admission of new traffic once engineering reaches > | its limits. > | > Under regular operational conditions. > | > > | > If someone now answers to this mail: uhh, just that - easy! > | > Then lets move this easy thing to WGLC. Now. I can't see that. > | > > | > If the PCN WG indeed has completely different aims, then > | I'm sorry for > | > bothering you with my mails (but I wonder whether I'm the > | one having > | > gotten things wrong). > | > > | > By the way, I'm happy with the progress visible in the > | questions you / > | > the WG has formulated. That looks like a constructive approach. > | > > | > Regards, > | > > | > Rudiger > | > > | > > | > > | > | -----Original Message----- > | > | From: Steven Blake [mailto:steven.blake@ericsson.com] > | > | Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:19 PM > | > | To: Geib, Rüdiger > | > | Cc: pcn@ietf.org > | > | Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's > PCN meeting > | > | > | > | On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:29 +0100, Geib, Ruediger wrote: > | > | > | > | > Hi Georgios, > | > | > > | > | > in the situation you describe, packet losses occur. This > | > | will result > | > | > in bad press, as the customers using PCN based services > | > | were promised > | > | > another type of service. > | > | > > | > | > In this situation it doesn't matter whether or not ECMP > | > is deployed > | > | > and it also doesn't matter whether termination is fair or > | > not. The > | > | > important event is: packet losses occur (in one of your > | examples > | > | > several routers drop packets). The drops are the only > | > | relevant issue. > | > | > Whether service resumes after 5 seconds due to extremly well > | > | > engineered termination or after 10 seconds after a > | > | sufficient number > | > | > of customers hang up is not important. > | > | > I can't recall having read anytime in the news "Major > | > | network outage - > | > | > but termination was fair." I can only recall having seen > | > the first > | > | > part. > | > | > > | > | > I'm sure you're happy in adapting your example, as you > | do all the > | > | > time. I'm having work to do, but maybe someone else is > | > | interested in > | > | > continuing discusion. I think, I've made my point. > | > | > | > | Ruediger, > | > | > | > | If I follow this comment to its logical conclusion, then PCN is > | > | superfluous in this network. Is that what you are > trying to say? > | > | > | > | > | > | 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 > | > > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
- [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN mee… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- [PCN] [Fwd: RE: Concensus questions from Thursday… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- [PCN] Fw: Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus questi… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- [PCN] Georgios's example philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley