Re: Draft on constraint-based routing

Yao-Min Chen <ychen@fla.fujitsu.com> Fri, 05 February 1999 01:30 UTC

Received: from ns.newbridge.com (ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id UAA26499 for <qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:30:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id UAA22845 for qosr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:30:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-gw1.newbridge.com(192.75.23.72), claiming to be "kanata-gw1.ca.newbridge.com" via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdLMAa17947; Thu Feb 4 20:28:58 1999
Received: from qmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com with ESMTP; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:26:41 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28444 for qosr-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:19:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com (kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.118.18]) by qmaster.ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28420 for <qosr@qmaster.ca.newbridge.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:19:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-gw.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:19:23 -0500
Received: from ns.newbridge.com ([192.75.23.67]) by kanata-gw.ca.newbridge.com via smtpd (for kanata-mh1.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.118.18]) with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 01:19:23 UT
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id UAA19908 for qosr@newbridge.com; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:19:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fujitsuII.fujitsu.com(133.164.11.2) via SMTP by ns.newbridge.com, id smtpdAAAa19897; Thu Feb 4 20:19:21 1999
Received: from cad.fla.fujitsu.com (cad.fla.fujitsu.com [133.164.58.131]) by fujitsuII.fujitsu.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03119; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from napali.fla.fujitsu.com (napali.NET.FLA.FUJITSU.COM [133.164.59.104]) by cad.fla.fujitsu.com (8.8.6/3.5Wpl7) with SMTP id RAA10610; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fla.fujitsu.com by napali.fla.fujitsu.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07417; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:09:19 -0800
Message-Id: <36BA44BB.81209C65@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:09:15 -0800
From: Yao-Min Chen <ychen@fla.fujitsu.com>
Reply-To: ychen@fla.fujitsu.com
Organization: Fujitsu Labs of America
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: braja@ccrl.nj.nec.com
CC: qosr@newbridge.com
Subject: Re: Draft on constraint-based routing
References: <36AF3F22.84E17445@ccrl.nj.nec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: qosr-owner@newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk

It seems reasonable to run in parallel best-effot and 
QoS routing protocols.  The mechanism described 
in the proposal is described as "overlay" because 
QoS routing relies on link state info collected by the 
best effort routing protocol.  The info is used to 
compute the MST.  It seems that the proposal chose 
MST instead of other types of spanning trees because 
nodes can individually compute but the computations 
will lead to exactly the same tree, which is important
to the correct operation of the proposal. Other than this,
is there any strong empirical or analytical reason 
why MST should be used?  Another type of spanning tree 
may be a min-hop one where the max number 
of hops between any pair of nodes along the tree is 
minimized.  Since the draft requires reliable 
transmission between neighboring nodes at the QoS 
routing layer, per-hop delay may be significant.
By reducing number of hops one can 
reduce the latency when some routing update
needs to be propagated along the tree to all nodes.  
 
Rgds,
Yao-Min  


Bala Rajagopalan wrote:
> 
> The following ID was recently posted to internet-drafts.
> Your comments are welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bala
> 
> -------------
> Title           : An Overlay Model for Constraint-Based Routing
>         Author(s)       : B. Rajagopalan, Q. Ma
>         Filename        : draft-rajagopalan-CR-overlay-00.txt
>         Pages           : 18
>         Date            : 25-Jan-99
> 
>        This draft considers an overlay model for constraint-based intra-
> 
>        domain routing and describes a mechanism for efficient update
>        propagation that can be used as the basis for this model. As a
>        specific example, the incorporation of a constraint-based routing
> 
>        overlay on the OSPF protocol is discussed.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rajagopalan-CR-overlay-00.txt
> 
> --
> 
> Bala Rajagopalan
> NEC USA, C&C Research Labs
> 4 Independence Way
> Princeton, NJ 08540
> U.S.A
> 
> Ph: +1-609-951-2969
> Fax: +1-609-951-2499
> Email: braja@ccrl.nj.nec.com

-- 
Yao-Min Chen, Fujitsu Labs of America, ychen@fla.fujitsu.com  
595 Lawrence Expressway, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-3922, USA
Ph: +1 408 530 4513  Fax: +1 408 530 4518