Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

The CL edge behaviour draft allows implementations to keep the number of 
flow identifiers down to a reasonable size. I would therefore suggest no 
new message is needed to carry them.

On 10/03/2012 2:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please note that draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt has just been posted.
> The following modifications have been done, see Section 4 (introductory text) and section 4.1:
>
> o) The CLE field has been removed from the PCN object format.
>
> o) two new CL based PCN objects have been defined that can be used to carry the number of flow identifiers for individual flows within an ingress-egress-aggregate that have recently experienced  excess-marking, see also draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-08:
>
>        o) Controlled (CL) PCN CL Flow IDs object, IPv4 addresses are used:
>            Class = PCN
>            C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs
>
>         o) Controlled (CL) PCN CL Flow IDs object, IPv6 addresses are used:
>              Class = PCN
>               C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs
>
> The main open issue, see also section 4 (introductory text)  that is related to one of the above listed modifications and needs to be discussed by the tsvwg WG is the following:
>
>     There are at least two possible options of carrying the
>     PCN objects of C-Type: RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or
>     RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs:
>       o) Option 1: The PCN objects of C-Type:
>          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or
>          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs MUST be carried by the
>          aggregated Resv message together with the other PCN object
>          C-Types. The advantage of this object is that no additional
>          message needs to be supported by this signaling protocol. The
>          drawback of this option is that the PCN objects of C-Type: RSVP-
>          AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs
>          can become larger than the maximum transmission unit (MTU) along
>          a path to the Aggregator.
>
>       o) Option 2: The PCN objects of C-Type:
>          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or
>          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs MUST be carried by NOTIFY
>          messages, see [RFC3473]. In particular, the NOTIFY
>          <flow descriptor list>  field could carry the flow IDs. The
>          advantage of this option is that the total list of the flow IDs
>          that need to be sent to the Aggregator can be divided in smaller
>          sets. Each of these sets can be then carried by one NOTIFY
>          message. The number of flow IDs that are included in such a set
>          MUST be such that the length of any NOTIFY message will not
>          become larger than the maximum transmission unit (MTU) along a
>          path to the Aggregator. The main disadvantage is the signaling
>          protocol needs to use an additional message type. If this option
>          is chosen then the format of the PCN objects of
>          C-Type: RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or
>          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs may need modifications. The
>          same holds for the procedures on handling the NOTIFY message by
>          the Interior nodes and by the Aggregator.
>
> Best regards,
> Georgios
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] namens [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> Verzonden: zaterdag 10 maart 2012 20:12
> Aan: [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail]
> Onderwerp: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains
>          Author(s)       : Georgios Karagiannis
>                            Anurag Bhargava
>          Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt
>          Pages           : 26
>          Date            : 2012-03-10
>
>     This document specifies the extensions to the Generic Aggregated RSVP
>     [RFC4860] for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single
>     Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
>     Congestion Notification.
>
>
>
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt