[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PCN] PCN WG last call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
Georgios,
sorry for the rude reaction yesterday.
I appreciate the contribution of you and your team to the experiments
around PCN as I do appreciate all other PCN experiments known to me.
This holds whether the text of the architecture document remains as
is or not.
Regards,
Ruediger
-----Original Message-----
From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian at cs.utwente.nl]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:45 PM
To: Geib, Rüdiger
Cc: pcn at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PCN] PCN WG last call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
Hi Ruediger
As I shown in previous emails, the definition of the HOSE model covers an
wide area
and its interpretation depends on the context.
Thus the mentioned model can be seen as a HOSE model in the PCN context.
As you could follow the discussion with Steven, this model is
not out of the PCN WG scope.
Best regards,
Georgios
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib at t-systems.com]
> Sent: donderdag 28 augustus 2008 11:44
> To: karagian at cs.utwente.nl
> Cc: pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PCN] PCN WG last call for
> draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
>
> Georgios,
>
> the hose model on an ingress node requires functionalities
> treating packets irrespective disregarding the destination
> address and the hose model applied to an egress node there
> require functionalities working on all packets disregarding
> their origin address.
>
> I've copied in two sections of draft westberg. The mechanisms
> mentioned there with regard to the hose model:
> - are obviously not related to the hose model.
> - are out of scope of the PCN WG.
>
> I think the WG can go on now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ruediger
>
>
>
> Quotes from draft-westberg-pcn-load-control-04
>
> 3.1.2.2. PCN-egress-node features
>
> [snip]
>
> Note that if an edge-to-edge pair aggregated state is not available
> at the PCN-egress-node, e.g., when the HOSE model is used then the
> PCN-egress-node cannot determine whether a PCN-egress-node
> associated
> with the edge-to-edge pair PCN aggregate operates in Normal state,
> Admission Control state or Flow Termination state.
> However, even in
> this case, when a probe packet arrives at the PCN-egress-node, then
> this request should be rejected if the probe packet is PCN_marking
> encoded. Otherwise, i.e., if the probe packet is not PCN_marking
> encoded, it should be accepted.
>
> 3.2.2. PCN-egress-node
>
> [snip]
>
> Note that in the ingress-egress-aggregate model the excess rate and
> the flows to be terminated are associated with the same
> edge-to-edge
> (i.e., ingress-egress) pair PCN aggregate and with the same traffic
> class, i.e., PHB. In the HOSE model the excess rate and
> the flows to
> be terminated are associated with the same traffic class,
> i.e., PHB.
> The PCN-egress-node needs to store for each flow the address, e.g.,
> IP address and port number, of the PCN-ingress-node from where the
> particular flow passed before arriving to the
> PCN-egress-node. This
> can be for example done by using information that is carried by the
> external protocols used in combination with the LC-PCN
> solution. For
> the flows that should be terminated the PCN-egress-node informs the
> associated PCN-ingress-node to terminate them. If the PCN domain
> uses thet ingress-egress-aggregate model and if the PCN-egress-node
> receives any admission flow request, belonging to a ingress-egress-
> aggregate state operating in flow termination state then
> the request
> must be rejected.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Georgios Karagiannis
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:37 PM
> To: philip.eardley at bt.com; slblake at petri-meat.com
> Cc: pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PCN] PCN WG last call for
> draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
>
> Hi Phil
>
> HOSE model is defined some 20 years ago, please see e.g the following
> article:
>
> N. G. Duffield, P. Goyal and A. Greenberg, "A Flexible Model
> for Resource Management in Virtual Private Networks", in:
> Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, 1999.
>
> In the above article I found the following definition:
>
> "A hose is characterized by the aggregate traffic to and from
> one endpoint in the VPN to the set of other endpoints in the VPN"
>
> Thus the definition refers to aggregated traffic to and from
> one edge to and from all other endpoints.
>
>
> In our case we refer only to the aggregated traffic from
> other endpoints to one endpoint.
>
> Thus what we use is in line with the definition of the HOSE model.
>
> Best regards,
> Georgios
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: philip.eardley at bt.com [mailto:philip.eardley at bt.com]
> > Sent: woensdag 27 augustus 2008 11:31
> > To: karagian at cs.utwente.nl; slblake at petri-meat.com
> > Cc: pcn at ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [PCN] PCN WG last call for
> > draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> >
> > I thought your emails with steve had revealed that your
> model was the
> > exact opposite of the well known hose model?
> >
> >
> > { -----Original Message-----
> > { From: Georgios Karagiannis
> [mailto:karagian at cs.utwente.nl] { Sent:
> > 27 August 2008 09:41 { To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R;
> > slblake at petri-meat.com { Cc: pcn at ietf.org { Subject: RE:
> > [PCN] PCN WG last call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> > {
> > { Hi Phil
> > {
> > { What I explained is the well know HOSE bandwidth management model.
> > { During the IETF in Dublin, Hein also shown also some
> results { that
> > were obtrained using the HOSE model.
> > {
> > {
> > { Best regards,
> > { Georgios
> > {
> > {
> > { > -----Original Message-----
> > { > From: philip.eardley at bt.com
> > [mailto:philip.eardley at bt.com] { > Sent: woensdag 27 augustus
> > 2008 10:20 { > To: karagian at cs.utwente.nl;
> slblake at petri-meat.com { >
> > Cc: pcn at ietf.org { > Subject: RE:
> > [PCN] PCN WG last call for { > draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> > { >
> > { > So the question is about adding to the draft:
> > { > A model where the egress measures marks coming from all the { >
> > ingresses, and makes admission decision based on that.
> > { >
> > { > Before adding anything about this to the draft, I'd like to { >
> > understand if this is a genuine practical, understood
> option { > (if
> > so, OK), or if it's a theoretical possibility or one not { > well
> > understood.
> > { > (there are many things in the latter category that aren't { >
> > mentioned in the draft.) { > { > Questions are why this is
> > interesting, why is it better than { > the models already
> well-known,
> > are there comparative analysis { > /simulations?
> > { >
> > { > I suppose I've got 2 general issues:
> > { > [1] every time something is added, overall the document
> { becomes
> > harder to understand, more daunting to read & it { > > looks less
> like the WG has consensus.
> > { > [2] this is an INFO doc. People are free to invent ways of { >
> > using the standards pieces other than the architecture
> draft { > says,
> > and indeed in ways not yet dreamt of.
> > { >
> > { > Phil.
> > { >
> > { > { -----Original Message-----
> > { > { From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org
> > [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On { > Behalf Of { Georgios
> Karagiannis
> > { Sent: 27 August 2008 08:54 { > { To: 'Steven Blake'
> > { > { Cc: pcn at ietf.org
> > { > { Subject: Re: [PCN] PCN WG last call for { >
> > draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> > { > {
> > { > { Hi Steven
> > { > {
> > { > { > -----Original Message-----
> > { > { > From: Steven Blake [mailto:slblake at petri-meat.com] {
> > > { > Sent: woensdag 27 augustus 2008 6:18 { > To: Georgios {
> > Karagiannis { > Cc: pcn at ietf.org { > Subject: RE: [PCN] PCN
> > { > WG
> > last
> call for { > draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> > { > { >
> > { > { > On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 16:11 +0200, Georgios
> Karagiannis wrote:
> > { > { >
> > { > { > > Hi Steven
> > { > { > >
> > { > { > >
> > { > { > > Please see in line!
> > { > { > >
> > { > { > >
> > { > { > > > -----Original Message----- { > { > > > From:
> Steven Blake
> > [mailto:slblake at petri-meat.com] { { > > > > Sent: dinsdag
> 26 augustus
> > 2008 14:46 { > > > To:
> > { > Georgios Karagiannis { > > > Cc: pcn at ietf.org { > > > { >
> > Subject: Re: [PCN] PCN WG last call for { > > > { >
> > draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
> > { > { > > >
> > { > { > > > On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:44 +0000, Georgios Karagiannis
> > wrote:
> > { > { > > >
> > { > { > > > > Hi Phil, Hi all
> > { > { > > > >
> > { > { > > > > Here are some comments on the PCN architecture draft:
> > { > { > > > >
> > { > { > > > > 1) Thank you for clarifying the bullet in
> Setion { > 3.2
> > about flow { > > > > termination.
> > { > { > > > >
> > { > { > > > > 2) From what I understand the PCN
> architecture { > draft
> > { > > > mentions that PCN { > > > > supports only the { > trunk
> > (ingress-egress-aggregate) and not the { > > >
> > > HOSE model.
> > { > { > > > > Is the PCN architecture draft excluding solutions { >
> > that { > support the { > > > > HOSE model? If not, please { >
> > emphasize in the PCN { > architecture draft {
> > > > > that { > "solutions that are based on other types of
> > flow { >
> > > > > > >
> { > aggregation than { > > > > the
> > ingress-egress-aggregate { > method of flow { >
> aggregation, are not {
> > > > > > excluded { > from the PCN WG activities."
> > { > { > > >
> > { > { > > > Actually they are, by our charter.
> > { > { > >
> > { > { > > I have not seen that the PCN charter excludes other { >
> > types { > of aggregation.
> > { > { >
> > { > { > Well, I checked, and you are correct (mea culpa).
> > { > { Georgios: No problem
> > { > {
> > { > { >
> > { > { > > Please note
> > { > { > > that I am refering to the HOSE model where the
> traffic { >
> > sent { > by one or { > > more than one ingresses towards one { >
> > egress is aggregated at the { > > egress. In this way higgher { >
> > traffic aggregation can be accomplished { > > than in the { >
> > situation that the pipe/trunk { >
> > (ingress-egress-aggregate) { > { > > is used, where the
> traffic sent
> > by only one ingress in { > aggegated at { > > the egress.
> > { > { >
> > { > { > Typically the "hose" model refers to
> point-to-multipoint { > {
> > > traffic flow, not multipoint-to-point.
> > { > { Georgios: Typically yes, but in this case we refer to {
> > bandwidth allocation { in a multipoint-to-point fashion.
> > { > {
> > { > { >
> > { > { >
> > { > { > Regards,
> > { > { >
> > { > { > // Steve
> > { > { >
> > { > {
> > { > {
> > { > { _______________________________________________
> > { > { PCN mailing list
> > { > { PCN at ietf.org
> > { > { https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
> > { >
> > {
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn