[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
I am sorry, but you probably do not know about all experiments regarding PCN even if it was not denoted PCN at that time. We started nine years ago, so there several experiments that have not ben presented in this forum. many of the discussion are identical what we investigated at that time.
We also discussed the trunk vs hose model (and combination of them) and the issues regarding scalalabillity of the trunk-model is a real issue. The number of trunks is cuasing a N^2 mesh configuration problem.
-Lasse
-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Geib, Ruediger
Sent: den 29 augusti 2008 08:26
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,
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
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn