IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Wed, 09 February 2011 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEDC3A67B4 for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vj84KEloNL42 for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C170F3A67A7 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p19G8kVI014862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:08:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p19G8j08028762 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:08:46 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4D52AE9B.4070901@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:11:23 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sip-overload@ietf.org
References: <4D3876BF.9050009@bell-labs.com> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB85352642141027CFAFE@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <4D503A57.6070206@bell-labs.com> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214102810BAC@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <4D51BF4B.5070500@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D51BF4B.5070500@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <sip-overload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-overload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:38 -0000

On 02/08/2011 04:10 PM, Volker Hilt wrote:
> Vijay, Bruno, following the discussion above - I believe that REQ-23 can
> in fact be met for load balancers that are not SIP aware. Of course,
> there is always a way to build a system that does not work. But the key
> point is that this requirement can be met with the correct design.
>
> My suggestion would be to document these approaches in the draft as this
> will be very relevant for implementers.
>
> I think with this documentation, a "Yes" to REQ-23 is appropriate.

OK, this is more work for me then simply changing a "Yes" to "Partial".
But, I will go ahead and do so.  If we need more discussion around
this, we should hold it now before I update the draft and summarize
the current discussion ...

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email