Re: [PCN] Comments on HOSE edge behaviour discussion

[ken carlberg <carlberg at g11.org.uk>]

the answer is configuration and per-implementation dependent.  A number of implementations have a default setting of per-flow or per-destination form of ECMP, which is what would be needed for RSVP.  The danger arises if an in-path router is configured for per-packet ECMP -- some vendors/implementations support this, some don't.

-ken


On Nov 12, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Steven Blake wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:32:58 +0100, "Georgios Karagiannis"
> <karagian at cs.utwente.nl> wrote:
> 
>>> Steven Blake: ECMP support - not safe to assume that path signaling
>> message will follow the same path as the data - so not safe to say that
> this
>>> scheme solves the ECMP support issue.
>> 
>> Georgios: Steve, please note that from the point of view of the followed 
>> communtication path for signaling messages and data packets, 
>> the same assumptions are used as the ones applied and used by RSVP PATH
> and
>> data packets. Thus if the RSVP signaling works to support QOS, then the
> proposed ECMP
>> solution will also work.
> 
> Georgios,
> 
> I don't believe that is correct.  Can you comment Francois?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> // Steve
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn