Re: [PCN] affected marking (or router marking) discussion in pcn architecture draft

Hi Georgios

Please note the following text in S6

<
The following are open issues.  They are mainly taken from
   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture] which also describes some
   possible solutions.  Note that some may be considered unimportant in
   general or in specific deployment scenarios or by some operators.

   NOTE: Potential solutions are out of scope for this document.
>

So I don't think it's right to include your statement below, as it's in
solution space.

As a side note, I think I remember that affected marking is done when an
interface is 'admission marking' pkts (rather than when an interface is
'termination marking pkts). In that case, affected marking tackles the
ecmp issue for flow admission (rather than for flow termination). 

phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian@cs.utwente.nl]
> Sent: 01 February 2008 10:14
> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
> Cc: pcn@ietf.org
> Subject: affected marking (or router marking) discussion in pcn
> architecture draft
> 
> Hi Phil
> 
> As mentioned in
>
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-
> 04.tx
> t
> Page 33, second bullet, the use of "'Router Marking' or "Affected
Marking"
> can be used
> to solve the ECMP issue during flow termination.
> 
> Can you please include this information in the PCN architecture draft,
> i.e.,
> in the section that
> discusses the ECMP issue?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Georgios
> 

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn