RE: [ANCP] Multicast BW Admission Control

["OOGHE Sven" <Sven.Ooghe at alcatel-lucent.be>]

Hi Francois,

see inline. 

Regards,
Sven

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP [mailto:flefauch at cisco.com] 
Sent: maandag 14 januari 2008 13:06
To: OOGHE Sven
Cc: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP; ancp at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Multicast BW Admission Control

Hi Sven,

Thanks for the clarification.
The approach you describe below seems fine to me.
I think the key point it brings is to clarify that it it can make sense
to perform CAC on some flows and not on others (and the non- CACed flows
will not break the CACed flows).

<Sven>Yes, I agree with this</Sven>

One small point. When you say "the NAS must make sure that the multicast
content is marked as best-effort", I wasn't sure if you implied that the
NAS would remark the flow. While that may be an option, a more common
case if probably that the flow got marked best- effort somewhere
upstream (eg when flow enters the SP network). I think it would be worth
clarifying.

<Sven>Correct, this is what I meant. In my rationale the NAS was the
entry point of the service provider network. But indeed, that may well
be another node</Sven>

Also, I would suggest that the text uses "Internet/Unkown" channels just
as an example of where this sort of approach may be used, but make it
clear it is a generic capability (e.g. the best-effort approach can be
used on known flows also).

<Sven>I am working on an updated framework version, which will include
the above notion for both known and unknown streams.</Sven>

Cheers

Francois

On 8 Jan 2008, at 16:02, OOGHE Sven wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In the Vancouver meeting minutes there is mention about multicast 
> bandwidth admission control, and what to do with "best effort"
> streams.
> Apparently there is some confusion on the concept. This email is the 
> clarify my view on this.
>
> As already described in section 3.4.2, there is a need - next to 
> policy based admission control - to perform CAC for the video content 
> being streamed across the access network. The different options to do 
> so are already defined in the framework document.
>
> Now, the point I wanted to bring up is that in general, the Access 
> Node and NAS cannot be aware of all possible multicast groups. It is 
> likely that there may be multicast channels offered across the 
> Internet. For these streams, performing bandwidth admission control 
> may be challenging.
>
> To solve this, these requests should by default be accepted, but the 
> network should handle the traffic as best effort. This can be done by 
> first of all adding a "catch-all statement" in the Access Node white 
> list or grey list. In case the Access Node queries the NAS, the NAS on

> his turn will have to accept the request. That way, the unknown 
> streams are not blocked by default. Next, the NAS must make sure that 
> the multicast content coming from the Internet is marked as best 
> effort traffic. This way, whenever congestion occurs somewhere in the 
> access/aggregation network, this stream will be kicked out before the 
> access provider's own premium content.
>
> If people agree with this, I suggest to add the above discussion to 
> the framework document.
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> ANCP at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp



_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp