Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones

["Shah, Himanshu" <[e-mail]>]

The unsolicited LDP notifications from egress to ingress with 'adjusted' b/w info is meant to notify
the ingress  about the 'congestion' experience at egress based on traffic received from ingress over the PW.

May be it can be clarified a little better. It is meant for 'any' traffic and not specific to client IP traffic.

However, I believe eric rosen already has a draft in the area you are considering (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-pwe3-congestion-04)
for PW congestion.

Thanks,
himanshu

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Updates to WG milestones

I don't see anything that looks like congestion control or cooperative behavior in
the face of congestion in that draft - IMHO, it looks like it's aimed at bandwidth
provisioning (committed rate + max burst rate/size).

OTOH, I think at least Yaakov Stein and I are going to try take another run at
producing a draft on congestion considerations (e.g., what happens when a fixed
bandwidth IP pseudowire is mixed with congestion responsive IP traffic so that
the two compete for limited forwarding capacity, and what should be done about
it?), but we both have problems with our day jobs distracting us from IETF work,
so this won't exactly be quick ;-).

If this comes together, we should have at least a -00 draft for Paris, so I'd ask
that the congestion considerations WG LC milestone be moved out to sometime next
summer (or even September 2011).

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones

Hi Mathew -
Comment on PW congestion consideration that is proposed for 'delete' from charter.

Was wondering if PW-QOS-signaling (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shah-pwe3-pw-qos-signaling-02)
that proposed throttling from successor to predecessor PE (via feedback loop) is applicable to this charter??

Also, why proposed delete? No interest? p2mp difficulties?

Thanks,
himanshu


[cid:image001.gif@01CCADD8.B4942290]
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 6:58 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones

All,

We need to update the milestones that we have on the charter to reflect our current work items and the revised dates that we expect to complete them.

Please find below a list of the updates we propose for the milestones that are currently not marked as 'done'.

We have also added a few notes against some of the milestones.

Please can you send any comments to the PWE3 list before Friday 2nd December.

Regards,

Matthew & Andy


  Done - P2MP Requirements LC
  Done - PW Status signalling in static/MPLS-TP
  Sep 2011 - Security Considerations LC **propose delete due to lack of interest
  Sep 2011 - Congestion Considerations **propose delete
  Mar 2012 - Packet PW Requirements / solution
  Mar 2012 - Dynamic MS-PW LC
  Jul 2012 - P2MP PW Signaling (root initiated)
  Jul 2012 - Signaling extensions for MPLS-TP OAM
  Jul 2012 - Static MS-PW extensions   **new
  Jul 2012 - Typed Wildcard FEC   **new
  Jul 2012 - Static PW status reduction  **new
  Jul 2012 - Enhanced PW OAM
  Sept 2012 - Multisegment PW MIB **propose delete due to lack of interest
  Dec 2012 - P2MP PW Signaling (leaf initiated)

New milestones: