Re: [PCN] Open issues on architecture draft.

Hi Steven,

Steven Blake wrote:
> Philip et. al., 
>
> I think there are open issues surrounding Sec. 5.6,
> namely:
>
> - how an egress node associates a received packet with an 
>   ingress-egress aggregate
>
> - whether centralized nodes are in scope for the architecture
>
> Regarding the former: I don't believe that it is the responsibility of
> PCN to mandate a mechanism for making the packet->aggregate association,
> nor is it our responsibility to define protocol mechanisms to facilitate
> this (although I would appreciate input from the ADs).  It would be good
> to discuss the issue in more detail in the document; e.g., list
> alternatives, discuss trade-offs, etc.
>   

I think the association of packet - ingress-egress-aggregate could 
depend on the scenario in which PCN is applied. MPLS tunnels might help 
or also per-flow classifiers at the PCN ingress and egress when some 
resource signalling protocol is used. We've called this "deployment 
models" in Section 2.2 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-babiarz-pcn-3sm-01.txt

Regards,

   Michael

> Regarding the latter issue: I have a strong opinion.  I think this needs
> more discussion by the working group.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Steven Blake                <steven.blake@ericsson.com>
> Ericsson/Redback Networks               +1 919-472-9913
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN@ietf.org
> https://www1.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: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn