Re: [PCN] Comments on HOSE edge behaviour discussion

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

Hi Ken

Okay! Thanks!

Best regards,
Georgios
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg at g11.org.uk] 
> Sent: maandag 16 november 2009 12:28
> To: Georgios Karagiannis
> Cc: 'Steven Blake'; pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PCN] Comments on HOSE edge behaviour discussion
> 
> Georgios,
> 
> Personally, I would be more cautious in the wording of your 
> document regarding EMCP.  For instance, I wouldn't assume the 
> per-flow or per-destination is the default case in all 
> instances.  Instead, I would the more neutral stance and 
> state that the these along with per-packet configurations 
> exist, and that in order to use the Hose model, the 
> per-flow/per-packet MUST be used.
> 
> -ken
> 
> 
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 4:36 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >> 
> > 
> > 
>