Re: [PCN] Comments on HOSE edge behaviour discussion

["Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian at cs.utwente.nl>]

Hi Ken

Thanks for the clarification! 
In my reasoning I have assumed that the default setting of ECMP is 
per-flow or per-destination form.

We could include this assumption in the HOSE edge behaviour draft!

Best regards,
Georgios


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg at g11.org.uk] 
> Sent: vrijdag 13 november 2009 15:52
> To: Steven Blake
> Cc: Georgios Karagiannis; pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PCN] Comments on HOSE edge behaviour discussion
> 
> 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
>