Hi Tina
I think this is down to the operator of the PCN-domain to decide (so I
guess it is "implementation dependent"). Anyway, it doesn't seem
appropriate to standardise such policy decisions.
Thanks
phil
{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: Tina TSOU [mailto:tena at huawei.com]
{ Sent: 03 October 2008 12:11
{ To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
{ Cc: pcn at ietf.org
{ Subject: Re: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-00.txt
{
{ Hi,
{ By what kind of policy the flow termination is performed? Which flow
{ belonging which user will be terminated? Is it implementation
dependent?
{
{
{ B. R.
{ Tina
{
{
{
{ On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:29 PM, philip.eardley at bt.com wrote:
{
{ > Hi,
{ > This is the update to the marking behaviour draft, which (I think)
{ > includes all the discussion we had on the list and in Dublin about
the
{ > previous version (draft-eardley-pan-marking-behaviour-01)
{ >
{ > Summary of changes:
{ >
{ > o Removed material concerning per domain behaviour and PCN-
{ > boundary-
{ > node operation (temporarily archived to Appendix C)
{ > it was agreed that this draft should be just about the 'per-hop'
{ > behaviour.
{ >
{ > We need a draft about the per-domain behaviour. This will be very
{ > short,
{ > eg saying that all nodes in the PCN-domain have to be configured to
do
{ > the same type of marking, the same choice about encoding states, do
{ > policing at the ingress-node etc. ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding
{ > Appendix B
{ > also indicates some things that the PCN-boundary-nodes need to do.
{ > I (& Toby) don't have time to write this per-domain behaviour draft
{ > (hoping for volunteer(s)!)
{ >
{ > There's also the Info edge behaviour draft or drafts. Some of the
{ > material in Appendix C might be useful for that.
{ >
{ >
{ > o Removed mention of downgrading as an option for per-hop traffic
{ > conditioning. In fact, downgrading is no longer allowed
{ > because S
{ > 2.6 now says "A PCN-node MUST NOT ...change a PCN-packet into a
{ > non PCN-packet".
{ >
{ > o Traffic conditioning is now a MAY. Since in general flow
{ > termination (not traffic conditioning) is PCN's method for
{ > handling problems of too much traffic.
{ > I think I got the conclusion on this right, but would appreciate
{ > people
{ > checking. I think a MAY captures best our conclusion (rather than a
{ > SHOULD or not talking about it all)
{ >
{ > o Metered-packets: competing-non-PCN-packets now MAY be metered.
{ > Since it is recommended that the operator doesn't allow any
{ > competing-non-PCN-traffic, and (if there is) there are
{ > potentially
{ > other ways of coping.
{ > This was the discussion with Christian recently about Section 6.5 of
{ > the
{ > architecture draft.
{ > In the previous draft, it was a MUST to meter these
{ > competing-non-PCN-packets. This seems onerous when we also recommend
{ > that there is no such traffic.
{ >
{ > o No changes (outside traffic conditioning & metering of
competing-
{ > non-PCN-traffic) to the Normative sections of the draft.
{ >
{ > o Appendix B.1 added about competing-non-PCN-traffic.
Recommended
{ > that there is no such traffic, but guidance given if there is.
{ >
{ >
{ > Sorry this has taken me longer than expected to get out.
{ >
{ > I'll do another rev before Minneapolis. I believe (or at least
hope!)
{ > that it'll then be ready for last call/
{ >
{ > Best wishes
{ > phil
{ >
{ > { -----Original Message-----
{ > { From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
{ > Of
{ > { Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
{ > { Sent: 02 October 2008 13:45
{ > { To: i-d-announce at ietf.org
{ > { Cc: pcn at ietf.org
{ > { Subject: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-00.txt
{ > {
{ > { A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
{ > { directories.
{ > { This draft is a work item of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion
{ > { Notification Working Group of the IETF.
{ > {
{ > {
{ > { Title : Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes
{ > { Author(s) : P. Eardley
{ > { Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-00.txt
{ > { Pages : 22
{ > { Date : 2008-10-02
{ > {
{ > { This document standardises the two marking behaviours of
PCN-nodes:
{ > { threshold marking and excess traffic marking. Threshold marking
{ > { marks all PCN-packets if the PCN traffic rate is greater than a
{ > first
{ > { configured rate. Excess traffic marking marks a proportion of
PCN-
{ > { packets, such that the amount marked equals the traffic rate in
{ > { excess of a second configured rate.Requirements Language
{ > {
{ > { The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT",
{ > { "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this
{ > { document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
{ > {
{ > { A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
{ > { http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-marking-
{ > behaviour-
{ > { 00.txt
{ > {
{ > { Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
{ > { ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
{ > {
{ > { Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
{ > { implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
{ > { Internet-Draft.
{ > _______________________________________________
{ > 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