Re: PQC and QOSPF

Yao-Min CHEN <ychen@fla.fujitsu.com> Tue, 28 July 1998 08:09 UTC

Delivery-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:09:30 -0400
Return-Path: owner-qosr@ca.newbridge.com
Received: from ns.newbridge.com (ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id EAA07849 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id EAA19912; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
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 smtpdAAAa19831; Tue Jul 28 04:04:03 1998
Received: from kanmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-gw1.ca.newbridge.com via smtpd (for ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67]) with SMTP; 28 Jul 1998 08:04:03 UT
Received: from distmaster.newbridge.com (distmaster.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.118.27]) by ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id EAA17630; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:04:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by distmaster.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA08240; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:37:29 -0400
Message-ID: <35BD8CA6.5AAE@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:32:38 -0700
From: Yao-Min CHEN <ychen@fla.fujitsu.com>
Reply-To: ychen@fla.fujitsu.com
Organization: Fujitsu Labs of America
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kenneth CARLBERG <K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
CC: qosr@newbridge.com
Subject: Re: PQC and QOSPF
References: <856.901363198@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-qosr@ca.newbridge.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to qosr-request@newbridge.com

Ken,

Good point. 

If dependency were one-way then we would probably be okay 
but what's troublesome is the cross-dependency between 
RSVP and path computation.  To break the dependency it seems one
could use a measurement based appraoch as mentioned by Jon.
Alternatively, it is proposed in PQC to take QoS path computation
away from routing to merge with RSVP. 

Yao-Min  


Kenneth CARLBERG wrote:
> 
> > Although still not quite sure about the traffic measurement
> > part (have yet to investigate what such a technique can do),
> > I pretty much agree that we should "evolve routing, signaling,
> > and admission control (and charging) all separately."
> 
> one aspect to keep in mind in the separation model is that time and
> resources are needed to coordinate the separate activities.  if routing
> schema (A) is dependent on signaling schema (B), then (probably) care
> might have to be taken for potential race conditions.
> 
> -ken