Re: [PCN] **DRAFT** PCN wg agenda for IETF 72

[<[e-mail]>]

Michael,
Sure, hopefully already got your suggestion

2.5.  Excess traffic meter function
...
If the token bucket is within an MTU of being empty, then
   the meter SHOULD indicate to the Marking function that the packet is
   to be excess-traffic-marked; MTU means the maximum size of PCN-
   packets on the link.  Otherwise the meter does not indicate marking.

And In appendix B.5.  Excess traffic metering
   Packet size independent marking is specified as a SHOULD in Section
   2.4 ( "If the token bucket is within an MTU of being empty, then the
   meter SHOULD indicate to the Marking function that the packet is to
   be excess-traffic-marked; MTU means the maximum size of PCN-packets
   on the link.")  Without it, large packets are more likely to be
   excess-traffic-marked than small packets and this means that, with
   some edge behaviours, flows with large packets are more likely to be
   terminated than flows with small packets
   [I-D.draft-briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark] [Menth].

Ok or need improving?

Thanks
phil
{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: Michael Menth [mailto:[e-mail]]
{ Sent: 16 July 2008 13:55
{ To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
{ Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
{ Subject: Re: [PCN] **DRAFT** PCN wg agenda for IETF 72
{ 
{ Hi Phil,
{ 
{ there is a requirement for packet-size independent marking
{ http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcn/draft-menth-pcn-emft-00.txt
{ which is necessary to achieve fairness for marked flow termination.
{ Evidence for its relevance it given in
{
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/staff/menth/Publications/Menth08
-
{ PCN-MFT.pdf
{ I raised this issue already at the last meeting since I think it's a
{ useful feature.
{ 
{ Regards,
{ 
{     Michael
{ 
{ [e-mail] wrote:
{ > Hi,
{ >
{ > I remember at/after the last ietf we had this "consensus question"
{ >
{ > -----Original Message-----
{ > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
{ > Steven Blake
{ > Sent: 20 April 2008 18:41
{ > To: pcn
{ > Subject: Re: [PCN] Consensus questions: Q4, Q5, and Q6
{ >
{ >
{ >> Q6: If presented with sufficient evidence in a timely fashion,
would
{ >>     the PCN wg entertain the option of modifying the interior
router
{ >>     Excess-Rate marking behavior for the standards-track PCN scheme
{ >>
{ > (as
{ >
{ >>     described in question 4)?
{ >>
{ >>
{ >
{ > The feedback for Q6 was a mixture of abstain and Yes with caveats.
If
{ > and when someone wants to propose modifications to the Excess-Rate
{ > marking behavior, we can see if there is interest to discuss it on
the
{ > list, but I *strongly encourage* that any such discussion needs to
{ > happen before the Dublin meeting.
{ >
{ > ----------------------------------
{ >
{ > as far as I know, there've been no proposals. But if I missed them,
then
{ > I guess that draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behavior-01 would need more
than
{ > 15mins (it captures the Consensus on marking behaviour, ie Questions
4 &
{ > 5)
{ >
{ > thanks,
{ > phil
{ >
{ > { -----Original Message-----
{ > { From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
{ > { Steven Blake
{ > { Sent: 16 July 2008 12:04
{ > { To: pcn
{ > { Subject: [PCN] **DRAFT** PCN wg agenda for IETF 72
{ > {
{ > { Greetings.  I plan to upload the following draft agenda for Dublin
{ > { today.  There are a few presentations that may be added at the
end,
{ > time
{ > { permitting.
{ > {
{ > { Please send comments to the list.
{ > {
{ > {
{ > { Regards,
{ > {
{ > { // Steve
{ > _______________________________________________
{ > PCN mailing list
{ > [e-mail]
{ > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
{ >
{ 
{ --
{ Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
{ University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
{ Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
{ phone: [phone], fax: [phone]
{ mailto:[e-mail]
{ http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn