[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PCN] AD review: draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-04



Lars, Toby,

Yup, seems the way to go.

Concerning:
"explain what we would expect
needed to happen if people wanted to suggest other DSCPs that it could
apply to (either existing or new ones). "

I don't see this as a big issue. It's just advice (informational appendix). If an operator applies PCN to a DSCP that isn't on the list, AFAIK it doesn't create any interworking problem that the IETF needs to worry about (noting that the charter says we have to keep interconnection in mind). So we don't need a process for the IETF to _approve_ the use of PCN for a DSCP not on the list.

Already some operators choose to apply admission control to a class while others don't. Introducing PCN to the RFC series simply adds another choice of mechanism with which to do admission control. But that doesn't create any more of an interworking problem than there was originally with operators choosing which classes they do admission control for. Even if they do PCN interconnect purely in the data plane, without back-to-back edge gateways at the interconnect, it doesn't create any greater interworking problem than they already have.

They already have to agree between themselves if they want to do inter-domain admission control for a class. And they have to agree the mechanism. So surely PCN is just added to that conversation as another mechanism choice.


Bob

At 11:35 19/08/2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,

this sounds like a reasonable way forward.

Lars

On 2009-8-19, at 11:30, toby.moncaster at bt.com wrote:

My proposed solution (based on the comments over the past 3 days) aims
to do two things, firstly to clarify that PCN is an alternative
marking
behaviour that Operators can specify for certain DSCPs (without
changing
the scheduling or other behaviours), secondly it should recommend 1
(or
more) DSCPs that are currently suitable and should list what we
believe
are the criteria for suitability AND/OR explain what we would expect
needed to happen if people wanted to suggest other DSCPs that it could
apply to (either existing or new ones). This second bit is more thorny
and I am not sure I am best placed to do it. I would welcome any
offers
of text for that bit...

The end result will be that we have a doc that really makes no IANA
requests, that suggests a suitable DSCP to apply PCN to initially and
that explains what makes that DSCP suitable...