[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
Hi Ruediger
Thank you for sending this email!
Apology is accepted!
Best regards,
Georgios
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib at t-systems.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 29 augustus 2008 8:26
> 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