Subject: Re: [i2rs] question to draft-white-i2rs-use-case-01

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:21:06 -0500

KwangKoog: 

Along with Russ White, I want to thank you for pointing out these additions
the white draft that align with sect 5.4.4 policy.   I am working on some
revisions to the draft for re-posting after IETF.

Did you have any suggested text? 

Thank you,

Sue Hares 

From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of KwangKoog Lee
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [i2rs] question to draft-white-i2rs-use-case-01

Dear authors, 

I read the use case document again and overally I think this document well
worked out. 

There are a few comments below;

1) Why the updated version removes previously described two use cases (MPLS
and optimal exit)? 

2) In Sec. 5, authors explained preemption on network bandwidth is necessary
for urgent movement of information from failed data center to safe data
center. But, the summary of I2RS capability and interactions has not any
detail capability about this. According to Sec 5.4.4 policy and QoS
mechanism of the architure document, I suggest that some statements about
queue control capability (priority queueing or other well-known scheduling
mechanisms, rate limit, etc ...) should be written in the summary.

best regards,

Kwang-koog Lee (KT)

---

From: KwangKoog Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:16:43 +0900

Dear Suan Hares,
Thanks to your response.
As your request, I summarized additional comments as following below;
The following material is just easy example but I hope it is useful for you
and I hope you revise it more helpful for readers.
"The ability to create a classification rules to recognize the routes
installed in the local RIB of each forwarding device. This must include the
destination prefix and the source prefix."
"The ability to create a scheduling and queueing profile including a
specific scheduler (strict priority, WRR, or WFQ) or a hierarchical
scheduling mechanism using the configured classification rules to ensure
high-priority traffic to be transmitted from queues than lower priority
traffic."
"The ability to apply the classification rule to an inbound interface of
each forwarding device and the scheduling and queue control profile to an
outbound interface of each forwarding device."

Thank you for your response again.
Becuase of other business, I cannot participate to this IETF meeting but I
want to continue to touch with you and discuss some of more useful use
cases from provider perspective.

best regards,
Kwang-koog Lee (KT)
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:

> KwangKoog:
>
>
>
>
>
> Along with Russ White, I want to thank you for pointing out these
> additions the white draft that align with sect 5.4.4 policy.   I am working
> on some revisions to the draft for re-posting after IETF.
>
>
>
> *From:* i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *KwangKoog Lee
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:38 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [i2rs] question to draft-white-i2rs-use-case-01
>
>
>
> Dear authors,
>
>
>
> 1) Why the updated version removes previously described two use cases
> (MPLS and optimal exit)?
>
>
>
> 2) In Sec. 5, authors explained preemption on network bandwidth is
> necessary for urgent movement of information from failed data center to
> safe data center. But, the summary of I2RS capability and interactions has
> not any detail capability about this. According to Sec 5.4.4 policy and QoS