From philip.eardley@bt.com Tue Feb 2 09:42:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAECF3A6975 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:42:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g9rmhoOeVffg for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998D53A6828 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.109]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:43:30 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:43:29 -0000 Message-ID: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363D68@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PCN] Edge behaviours Thread-Index: AcqSCA+pBgmGz8qoRTC3ZFBO3lORtwSJx5/g From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2010 17:43:30.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B918090:01CAA42F] Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] Edge behaviours X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:42:53 -0000 Tom Sorry for the delay in replying. Your suggestions look fine to me Best wishes phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom111.taylor@bell.net]=20 > Sent: 10 January 2010 15:18 > To: Eardley,PL,Philip,DEE1 R > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PCN] Edge behaviours >=20 >=20 > Before I reissue the edge behaviour drafts, I'd like to get=20 > agreement on what=20 > I'd put into them. >=20 > In Hiroshima we agreed that WHAT would be conveyed would be=20 > the measured rates=20 > of unmarked, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked traffic=20 > (octets/second). This provides flexibility for future usages. >=20 > For the open issue of WHEN these measurements would be sent=20 > and the inter-twined=20 > issue of whether measurements would be smoothed, I propose=20 > the following: >=20 > 1) Measurements would be taken over periods of a recommended=20 > 100 to 300 ms=20 > duration and rates would be calculated at the end of each=20 > period. This implies a=20 > certain amount of smoothing, of course. >=20 > 2) No other smoothing would be mentioned. >=20 > 3) As an optimization, if traffic rates are zero for a given=20 > aggregate, the=20 > egress node MAY skip sending a report to the ingress node.=20 > This leads to a=20 > keepalive discussion. One possibility is that reporting backs=20 > off from every=20 > measurement interval to once a second or so while traffic=20 > rates are zero. If=20 > there are other means for the ingress node to be assured that=20 > the egress node is=20 > alive and doing its job, this would be unnecessary. >=20 > philip.eardley@bt.com wrote: > > Tom > > I've lost track of what's happening with the edge=20 > behaviours. I guess=20 > > there's another rev following Hiroshima meeting? I should=20 > have time to=20 > > do a review of something next couple of weeks, but I guess would be=20 > > better to review a new version? > >=20 > > Thanks > > phil > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > PCN mailing list > > PCN@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn >=20 From sob@harvard.edu Sat Feb 6 13:13:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7FC3A6E0F for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:13:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JW4t3A5l-Vrx for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:13:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3403A6E16 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7A6F147F4F2; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:14:19 -0500 (EST) To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100206211419.7A6F147F4F2@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:14:19 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: [PCN] agenta slits for pcn in Anaheim X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:13:36 -0000 does anyone have agenda items for a pcn session in Anaheim? Scott From sob@harvard.edu Sat Feb 6 13:15:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34D83A6A88 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:15:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ooQIjxKf11y for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385E93A68C6 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id E443F47F50A; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:16:13 -0500 (EST) To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100206211613.E443F47F50A@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:16:13 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: [PCN] sigh - make that slots X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:15:19 -0000 fingers do not always work quite right From tom111.taylor@bell.net Sat Feb 6 13:33:55 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB213A6F53 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xDTV-o8JlJzK for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc1-s31.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s31.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27E83A6819 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP78 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:34:50 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [76.64.156.247] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([76.64.156.247]) by BLU0-SMTP78.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:34:49 -0800 Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:34:47 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scott O. Bradner" References: <20100206211613.E443F47F50A@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20100206211613.E443F47F50A@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2010 21:34:49.0623 (UTC) FILETIME=[35ECB270:01CAA774] Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] sigh - make that slots X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:33:55 -0000 I'll be updating the edge behaviour drafts shortly, but I don't know if they will need discussion this time. I suppose I'd better hurry up and we can see. Tom From menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Tue Feb 9 07:34:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EDE3A739E for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:34:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVinMF9YUxvv for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:34:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.3.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB5E3A737C for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:34:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id E171E5AC43 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:35:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4245AC3F for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:35:36 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de Received: from [132.187.12.151] (win3151.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.12.151]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B84905CC32 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:35:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B7180C8.7040809@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:35:36 +0100 From: Michael Menth Organization: University of Wuerzburg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pcn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:34:32 -0000 Hi all, the current flow termination method is as follows. A) 1. The egress node restarts the measurement interval if it detects excess-traffic-marked packets after long time. 2. The new PCN feedback is signalled to the decision point. 3. The decision point triggers the measurement of the ingress rate. 4. The ingress returns the ingress rate to the decision point. 5. The decision point calculates the termination rate by a) TR=ingress-rate - not-marked-rate - threshold-marked-rate (dual marking) b) TR=ingress-rate - (not-marked-rate * u) (single marking) 6. The decision point terminates flows with an overall rate of the termination rate TR. The restart of the measurement interval in 1) is needed to avoid underestimated not-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates in 5) when the computation of TR uses the rates from the same PCN feedback that triggered the measurement at the ingress node. B) However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must be younger than the one that triggered the measurement of the ingress-rate, then we do not longer need the restart of the measurement interval in 1). This does not lead to extra delay compared to A) because traffic cannot be terminated earlier than the ingress-rate is available and in the meantime, new PCN feedback has arrived. This has two advantages: i) Simplified control because egress may measure periodically ii) Earlier termintion because termination is triggered at most but mostly earlier than 1 measurement interval after the arrival of the first ETM packet at the egress node. C) Another option: 1) measurement at egress node starts with arrival of first ETM packets 2) ingress nodes send ingress rates periodically 3) decision point must use ingress rate which is older than pcn feedback + RTT This is a bit faster but requires restart of measurement intervals at the egress node. BUT: avoiding underestimated non-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates works only for dual marking because with single marking packets may be excess-traffic-marked already in the presence of AR-pre-congestion. Therefore, I think option B) is most reasonable. What's your opinion? I think it would be good if we could fix that issue in the next revision of the edge behavior drafts. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-01 Regards, Michael -- Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206 phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new) mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Tue Feb 9 23:40:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263AE3A767B for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:40:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.32 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iU1-NDkloz9K for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:40:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBBF3A7675 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:40:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2010 08:40:51 +0100 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.12]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:40:51 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:40:48 +0100 Message-ID: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50325092C@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <4B7180C8.7040809@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: thread-topic: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm thread-index: AcqpnYqzoCa3HZ+SS466mDM97X8MiAAhlQtA References: <4B7180C8.7040809@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2010 07:40:51.0517 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E8AA6D0:01CAAA24] Subject: Re: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:40:13 -0000 Hello Michael, while I'm not with a vendor and no supporter of load reduction by=20 termination, it seems to me, that B) is the simplest option.=20 That's why I'd favour it. my 2 cents, Ruediger Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH Zentrum Technik Einf=FChrung R=FCdiger Geib Heinrich-Hertz-Stra=DFe 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt +49 6151 628-2747 (Tel.) +49 251 7985 209 (Fax) http://www.telekom.com Erleben, was verbindet. Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender) Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender), Albert = Matheis, Klaus Peren Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn USt-IdNr. DE 814645262 -----Original Message----- From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Michael Menth Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:36 PM To: pcn Subject: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm Hi all, the current flow termination method is as follows. A) 1. The egress node restarts the measurement interval if it detects=20 excess-traffic-marked packets after long time. 2. The new PCN feedback is signalled to the decision point. 3. The decision point triggers the measurement of the ingress rate. 4. The ingress returns the ingress rate to the decision point. 5. The decision point calculates the termination rate by a) TR=3Dingress-rate - not-marked-rate - threshold-marked-rate (dual = marking) b) TR=3Dingress-rate - (not-marked-rate * u) (single marking) 6. The decision point terminates flows with an overall rate of the=20 termination rate TR. The restart of the measurement interval in 1) is needed to avoid=20 underestimated not-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates in 5) when=20 the computation of TR uses the rates from the same PCN feedback that=20 triggered the measurement at the ingress node. B) However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must be younger=20 than the one that triggered the measurement of the ingress-rate, then we = do not longer need the restart of the measurement interval in 1). This=20 does not lead to extra delay compared to A) because traffic cannot be=20 terminated earlier than the ingress-rate is available and in the=20 meantime, new PCN feedback has arrived. This has two advantages: i) Simplified control because egress may measure periodically ii) Earlier termintion because termination is triggered at most but=20 mostly earlier than 1 measurement interval after the arrival of the=20 first ETM packet at the egress node. C) Another option: 1) measurement at egress node starts with arrival of first ETM packets 2) ingress nodes send ingress rates periodically 3) decision point must use ingress rate which is older than pcn feedback = + RTT This is a bit faster but requires restart of measurement intervals at=20 the egress node. BUT: avoiding underestimated non-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates = works only for dual marking because with single marking packets may be=20 excess-traffic-marked already in the presence of AR-pre-congestion.=20 Therefore, I think option B) is most reasonable. What's your opinion? I think it would be good if we could fix that issue in the next revision = of the edge behavior drafts. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-01 Regards, Michael --=20 Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206 phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new) mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn From root@core3.amsl.com Wed Feb 10 06:30:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@ietf.org Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id A44303A755A; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100210143001.A44303A755A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-01.txt X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:01 -0000 --NextPart 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 : PCN 3-State Encoding Extension in a single DSCP Author(s) : B. Briscoe, T. Moncaster Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-02-10 The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain. The overall rate of the PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the PCN-domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain configured rates are exceeded. The level of marking allows the boundary nodes to make decisions about whether to admit or block a new flow request, and (in abnormal circumstances) whether to terminate some of the existing flows, thereby protecting the QoS of previously admitted flows. This document specifies how such marks are to be encoded into the IP header by re-using the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) codepoints within this controlled domain. This encoding builds on the baseline encoding and provides for three PCN encoding states: Not-marked, Threshold-marked and Excess-traffic-marked. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-01.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. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-02-10062830.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk Wed Feb 10 07:52:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487143A773B for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:52:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVuZmV1iX97Q for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F103A6852 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.70]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:55 +0000 Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.196.177]) by i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:55 +0000 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1265817232871; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:52 +0000 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.87]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o1AFrnYm002268; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:49 GMT Message-Id: <201002101553.o1AFrnYm002268@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:54 +0000 To: Michael Menth , Steven BLAKE From: Bob Briscoe Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2010 15:53:55.0180 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FC762C0:01CAAA69] Cc: PCN IETF list Subject: [PCN] Unexpire draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-00? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:52:52 -0000 Michael, Steve, While I'm revving draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-00, we promised to change the filename, to avoid confusion between: * ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding PCN 3-State Encoding Extension in a single DSCP * ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding A PCN encoding using 2 DSCPs to provide 3 or more states I suggest we keep the former as it is, and change the latter to draft-ietf-pcn-3to6-in-2-encoding Let me know if you object. Bob ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From root@core3.amsl.com Wed Feb 10 16:00:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@ietf.org Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 036723A77B2; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100211000002.036723A77B2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:00:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01.txt X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:02 -0000 --NextPart 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 : A PCN encoding using 2 DSCPs to provide 3 or more states Author(s) : B. Briscoe, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2010-02-10 Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a mechanism designed to protect the Quality of Service of inelastic flows within a controlled domain. It does this by marking packets when traffic load on a link is approaching or has exceeded a threshold below the physical link rate. This experimental encoding scheme specifies how three encoding states can be carried in the IP header using a combination of two DSCPs and the ECN bits. The Basic scheme only allows for three encoding states. The Full scheme provides 6 states, enough for limited end- to-end support for ECN as well. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01.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. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-02-10154708.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From philip.eardley@bt.com Thu Feb 18 07:11:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CD628C10F for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:11:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sxQmU2x-p4Cc for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.smtp.bt.com (smtp2.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.150]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED4528C0EA for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.111]) by smtp2.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:12:47 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:11:53 -0000 Message-ID: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363E06@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50325092C@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm Thread-Index: AcqpnYqzoCa3HZ+SS466mDM97X8MiAAhlQtAAaIs6UA= From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2010 15:12:47.0753 (UTC) FILETIME=[D461E790:01CAB0AC] Subject: Re: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:11:09 -0000 I don't object to this - but how do you make sure that it is younger?:- > However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must=20 > be younger=20 > than the one that triggered the measurement of the=20 > ingress-rate, =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de > Sent: 10 February 2010 07:41 > To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de; pcn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm >=20 >=20 > Hello Michael, >=20 > while I'm not with a vendor and no supporter of load reduction by=20 > termination, it seems to me, that B) is the simplest option.=20 > That's why I'd favour it. >=20 > my 2 cents, >=20 > Ruediger >=20 >=20 > Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH > Zentrum Technik Einf=FChrung > R=FCdiger Geib > Heinrich-Hertz-Stra=DFe 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt > +49 6151 628-2747 (Tel.) > +49 251 7985 209 (Fax) > http://www.telekom.com >=20 > Erleben, was verbindet. >=20 > Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH > Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender) > Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender),=20 > Albert Matheis, Klaus Peren > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn > USt-IdNr. DE 814645262 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Michael Menth > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:36 PM > To: pcn > Subject: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > the current flow termination method is as follows. >=20 > A) > 1. The egress node restarts the measurement interval if it detects=20 > excess-traffic-marked packets after long time. > 2. The new PCN feedback is signalled to the decision point. > 3. The decision point triggers the measurement of the ingress=20 > rate. 4. The ingress returns the ingress rate to the decision=20 > point. 5. The decision point calculates the termination rate by > a) TR=3Dingress-rate - not-marked-rate - threshold-marked-rate=20 > (dual marking) > b) TR=3Dingress-rate - (not-marked-rate * u) (single marking) > 6. The decision point terminates flows with an overall rate of the=20 > termination rate TR. >=20 > The restart of the measurement interval in 1) is needed to avoid=20 > underestimated not-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates in 5) when=20 > the computation of TR uses the rates from the same PCN feedback that=20 > triggered the measurement at the ingress node. >=20 > B) > However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must=20 > be younger=20 > than the one that triggered the measurement of the=20 > ingress-rate, then we=20 > do not longer need the restart of the measurement interval in=20 > 1). This=20 > does not lead to extra delay compared to A) because traffic cannot be=20 > terminated earlier than the ingress-rate is available and in the=20 > meantime, new PCN feedback has arrived. This has two advantages: > i) Simplified control because egress may measure periodically > ii) Earlier termintion because termination is triggered at most but=20 > mostly earlier than 1 measurement interval after the arrival of the=20 > first ETM packet at the egress node. >=20 > C) > Another option: > 1) measurement at egress node starts with arrival of first ETM packets > 2) ingress nodes send ingress rates periodically > 3) decision point must use ingress rate which is older than=20 > pcn feedback=20 > + RTT > This is a bit faster but requires restart of measurement intervals at=20 > the egress node. >=20 > BUT: avoiding underestimated non-marked-rates and=20 > threshold-marked-rates=20 > works only for dual marking because with single marking=20 > packets may be=20 > excess-traffic-marked already in the presence of AR-pre-congestion.=20 > Therefore, I think option B) is most reasonable. What's your opinion? >=20 > I think it would be good if we could fix that issue in the=20 > next revision=20 > of the edge behavior drafts.=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-01 Regards, Michael --=20 Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206 phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new) = mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn From menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Fri Feb 19 13:32:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF443A7E0E for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:32:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCJj07rcg8ZC for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.3.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681A63A7B77 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9A15AD44; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:34:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0939B5AD42; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:34:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de Received: from [192.168.1.2] (e183151198.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.183.151.198]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F9265D79E; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:34:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B7F03A4.30106@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:33:24 +0100 From: Michael Menth Organization: University of Wuerzburg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philip.eardley@bt.com References: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363E06@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363E06@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:32:23 -0000 Hi Phil, philip.eardley@bt.com schrieb: > I don't object to this - but how do you make sure that it is younger?:- > 1. Decision point receives from egress PCN feedback indicating potential termination 2. Decision point triggers ingress to perform ingress measurement 3. Decision point receives from egress next PCN feedback indicating potential termination 4. Decision point receives from ingress the sent PCN rate The PCN feedback in 3 is younger than the PCN feedback in 1. Is there something I have overlooked? Regards, Michael >> However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must >> be younger >> than the one that triggered the measurement of the >> ingress-rate, >> > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de >> Sent: 10 February 2010 07:41 >> To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de; pcn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm >> >> >> Hello Michael, >> >> while I'm not with a vendor and no supporter of load reduction by >> termination, it seems to me, that B) is the simplest option. >> That's why I'd favour it. >> >> my 2 cents, >> >> Ruediger >> >> >> Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH >> Zentrum Technik Einführung >> Rüdiger Geib >> Heinrich-Hertz-Straße 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt >> +49 6151 628-2747 (Tel.) >> +49 251 7985 209 (Fax) >> http://www.telekom.com >> >> Erleben, was verbindet. >> >> Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH >> Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender) >> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender), >> Albert Matheis, Klaus Peren >> Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190 >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn >> USt-IdNr. DE 814645262 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Michael Menth >> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:36 PM >> To: pcn >> Subject: [PCN] Open issue in the termination algorithm >> >> Hi all, >> >> the current flow termination method is as follows. >> >> A) >> 1. The egress node restarts the measurement interval if it detects >> excess-traffic-marked packets after long time. >> 2. The new PCN feedback is signalled to the decision point. >> 3. The decision point triggers the measurement of the ingress >> rate. 4. The ingress returns the ingress rate to the decision >> point. 5. The decision point calculates the termination rate by >> a) TR=ingress-rate - not-marked-rate - threshold-marked-rate >> (dual marking) >> b) TR=ingress-rate - (not-marked-rate * u) (single marking) >> 6. The decision point terminates flows with an overall rate of the >> termination rate TR. >> >> The restart of the measurement interval in 1) is needed to avoid >> underestimated not-marked-rates and threshold-marked-rates in 5) when >> the computation of TR uses the rates from the same PCN feedback that >> triggered the measurement at the ingress node. >> >> B) >> However, if we require that the PCN feedback used in 5) must >> be younger >> than the one that triggered the measurement of the >> ingress-rate, then we >> do not longer need the restart of the measurement interval in >> 1). This >> does not lead to extra delay compared to A) because traffic cannot be >> terminated earlier than the ingress-rate is available and in the >> meantime, new PCN feedback has arrived. This has two advantages: >> i) Simplified control because egress may measure periodically >> ii) Earlier termintion because termination is triggered at most but >> mostly earlier than 1 measurement interval after the arrival of the >> first ETM packet at the egress node. >> >> C) >> Another option: >> 1) measurement at egress node starts with arrival of first ETM packets >> 2) ingress nodes send ingress rates periodically >> 3) decision point must use ingress rate which is older than >> pcn feedback >> + RTT >> This is a bit faster but requires restart of measurement intervals at >> the egress node. >> >> BUT: avoiding underestimated non-marked-rates and >> threshold-marked-rates >> works only for dual marking because with single marking >> packets may be >> excess-traffic-marked already in the presence of AR-pre-congestion. >> Therefore, I think option B) is most reasonable. What's your opinion? >> >> I think it would be good if we could fix that issue in the >> next revision >> of the edge behavior drafts. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01 >> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-01 > > Regards, > > Michael > > -- Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206 phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new) mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn From tom111.taylor@bell.net Tue Feb 23 14:52:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4673A8351 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:52:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.641, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jF7nxhocTVC for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc1-s36.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s36.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456943A8350 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP51 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s36.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:54:53 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [76.64.153.220] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([76.64.153.220]) by BLU0-SMTP51.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:54:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:54:49 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pcn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2010 22:54:53.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[36165070:01CAB4DB] Subject: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:52:50 -0000 I've started updating the the edge behaviour documents. While my co-authors are reviewing them, could we agree on the following text to be included in them? Flow termination MUST be a configurable option at the decision point. Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. Tom From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Tue Feb 23 23:22:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD55628C100 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:22:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.692 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NINzhLYNVjYi for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DEC28C0D6 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de8psaanq.blf.telekom.de (HELO S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.166]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2010 08:24:41 +0100 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.12]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:24:41 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:24:38 +0100 Message-ID: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50344A08E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PCN] Flow termination optional? Thread-Index: Acq02zslfwl4MdcxTOeO88IeofiqYAARrCaQ References: From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2010 07:24:41.0823 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E5796F0:01CAB522] Subject: Re: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:22:47 -0000 Tom, I agree with your proposal. I wouldn't object however, if deactivation = of=20 termination MUST be a configurable option. Regards,=20 Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Tom Taylor Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:55 PM To: pcn Subject: [PCN] Flow termination optional? I've started updating the the edge behaviour documents. While my = co-authors are=20 reviewing them, could we agree on the following text to be included in = them? Flow termination MUST be a configurable option at the decision point. Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. Tom _______________________________________________ Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH Zentrum Technik Einf=FChrung R=FCdiger Geib Heinrich-Hertz-Stra=DFe 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt +49 6151 628-2747 (Tel.) +49 251 7985 209 (Fax) http://www.telekom.com Erleben, was verbindet. Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender) Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender), Albert = Matheis, Klaus Peren Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn USt-IdNr. DE 814645262 From menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Wed Feb 24 00:10:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE96128C163 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:10:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WvJpFjWffNb4 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:10:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.3.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2768228C0F8 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A895ADE1; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9392B5ACD9; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:48 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de Received: from [132.187.12.151] (win3151.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.12.151]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 749E75D7D0; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B84DF7D.3010907@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:45 +0100 From: Michael Menth Organization: University of Wuerzburg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Taylor References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pcn Subject: Re: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:10:58 -0000 Hi Tom, that's fine with me. Michael Tom Taylor schrieb: > I've started updating the the edge behaviour documents. While my > co-authors are reviewing them, could we agree on the following text to > be included in them? > > > > Flow termination MUST be a configurable option at the decision point. > > Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. > > > > Tom > _______________________________________________ > PCN mailing list > PCN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn -- Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206 phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new) mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Wed Feb 24 05:16:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A79628C0E8 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:16:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VnZnz7brxz+H for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A7B3A824F for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o1ODIrKK018157; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:18:57 +0100 (MET) From: "Georgios Karagiannis" To: References: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50344A08E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:18:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003701cab553$e8c09a50$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50344A08E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Thread-Index: Acq02zslfwl4MdcxTOeO88IeofiqYAARrCaQAAxt23A= X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:18:58 +0100 (MET) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:16:58 -0000 Hi Tom I agree! Best regards, Georgios =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Tom Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:55 PM > To: pcn > Subject: [PCN] Flow termination optional? >=20 > I've started updating the the edge behaviour documents. While=20 > my co-authors are reviewing them, could we agree on the=20 > following text to be included in them? >=20 > >=20 > Flow termination MUST be a configurable option at the decision point. >=20 > Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. >=20 > >=20 > Tom > _______________________________________________ >=20 >=20 >=20 > Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH > Zentrum Technik Einf=FChrung > R=FCdiger Geib > Heinrich-Hertz-Stra=DFe 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt > +49 6151 628-2747 (Tel.) > +49 251 7985 209 (Fax) > http://www.telekom.com >=20 > Erleben, was verbindet. >=20 > Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH > Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender) > Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender),=20 > Albert Matheis, Klaus Peren > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190 Sitz der=20 > Gesellschaft: Bonn USt-IdNr. DE 814645262=20 > _______________________________________________ > PCN mailing list > PCN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn >=20 From tom111.taylor@bell.net Wed Feb 24 09:10:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C4D28C1F9 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:10:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.162 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.642, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G639euyKfoGQ for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc1-s10.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s10.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741728C131 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP71 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s10.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:19 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [76.64.153.220] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([76.64.153.220]) by BLU0-SMTP71.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:12:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:12:17 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de References: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50344A08E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50344A08E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2010 17:12:19.0259 (UTC) FILETIME=[856960B0:01CAB574] Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:10:13 -0000 I'll go with that. Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote: > Tom, > > I agree with your proposal. I wouldn't object however, if deactivation of > termination MUST be a configurable option. > > Regards, > > Ruediger > ... From daisuke.satoh@ntt-at.co.jp Wed Feb 24 18:17:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21DD28C2AF for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:17:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUSKuZohKNqM for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from sg.ntt-at.co.jp (roma.ntt-at.co.jp [202.253.160.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B12C228C2AC for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:17:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 98871 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2010 02:19:55 -0000 Received: from gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (192.168.5.202) by subgate.bb.ntt-at.co.jp with SMTP; 25 Feb 2010 02:19:55 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) id o1P2JmAv015003 for pcn@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:48 +0900 Received: from vcsrv1.bb.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.2.9] by gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp with ESMTP id MAA15002; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:48 +0900 Received: from vcsrv1.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (vcsrv1.bb.ntt-at.co.jp [127.0.0.1]) by vcsrv1.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1P2JmXg004742 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:48 +0900 Received: from pacific.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (pacific.bb.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.2.16]) by vcsrv1.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1P2JmTs004739 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:48 +0900 Received: from atmail21.am.ntt-at.co.jp (atmail21.am.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.5.161]) by pacific.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (8.13.1/cf/pacific) with ESMTP id o1P2Jm6R027404 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:48 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from daisuke.satoh@ntt-at.co.jp) Received: from [192.168.21.66] (ip21-066.tec.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.21.66]) by atmail21.am.ntt-at.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E6356EA99; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:43 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:19:41 +0900 From: SATOH Daisuke To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100225111941.2220.26AD349@ntt-at.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.51.06 [ja] Subject: Re: [PCN] Flow termination optional? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:17:48 -0000 Dear Tom, I also agree with your proposal. Best regards, Daisuke > I've started updating the the edge behaviour documents. While my > co-authors are > reviewing them, could we agree on the following text to be included in > them? > > > > Flow termination MUST be a configurable option at the decision point. > > Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. > > > > Tom From sob@harvard.edu Sun Feb 28 12:56:27 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1543A28C1D0 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:56:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oa097tQrXxq for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:56:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D4B28C1CF for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:56:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7CB8E519C38; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:56:26 -0500 (EST) To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100228205626.7CB8E519C38@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:56:26 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: [PCN] no topics for PCN in Anaheim? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:56:27 -0000 I did not see any actual requests for agenda time in Anaheim - did I miss something? Scott