Subject: [PCN] question on whether assumptions draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt brake PCN CL and PCN SM specs

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:00:42 +0000

Hi all,

The draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01.txt considers that the following two assumptions can be supported without breaking the 
draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-10.txt  and draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-13.txt behaviours. 

o) More than one IEAs between same pair of PCN edge nodes should be supported, while each of them should use a different PHB-ID value (DSCP value).
Why: This is useful for the case that When IEA supported by a PCN-ingress-node is in PCN-admission state, then based on local policy, requesting e2e RSVP session should be either rejected or mapped to another IEA that is NOT in PCN-admission-state

o) When for IEA supported by PCN-ingress-node incoming traffic needs reduced then based on a local policy and for same IEA, selects a number of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows)  to be either terminated or to reduce reserved bandwidth of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows ), in order to solve congestion in PCN-domain.
Why: This is useful, since flows will not be terminated unnecessary, and at the same time  the IEA bandwidth is reduced to solve the severe congestion!

During the presentation of the initial RSVP over PCN draft during the IETF 81 (tsvwg), if I recall well, it was agreed that these assumptions will not brake these specifications!

Please comment on the above!

Best regards,
Georgios