Subject: Internet Draft Submission: Orchestrally Conducted Traffic

From: Hummel Heinrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:36:02 +0100

Hi all,

I emailed draft-hummel-te-oct-01.txt to [email-masked].
I also applied for a time-slot in the TE-WG for presenting this traffic
balancing concept in Adelaide.
I appreciate any comment on this topic.

Regards

Heinrich Hummel
Siemens AG
[email-masked]

---

From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:53:12 +0100

Heinrich,

there is something that worries me very much about this. From the 
abstract:

"This draft proposes to engineer traffic such that we can speak of  an
Orchestrally  Conducted  Traffic  (OCT): Any traffic stream (given by
its source and destination nodes and by a  priority  class)  may  use
several  differently  routed  LSPs.   Each,  traffic  stream  ingress
reports,  periodically,  the  currently  measured  traffic  load  (in
bitrate)  to  a  common  TE  Conductor (TEC) who evaluates them as to
guess what traffic load change might  occur  in  the  immediate  time
ahead.  Accordingly  the  TEC   computes well synchronized likelihood
values by which to take which route/LSP. These values  will  be  such
that  any traffic stream will be served as good as possible, as often
as possible, while equally ranked traffic streams are  treated  fair,
higher  ranked  streams  are prioritized  and  the network thruput is
maximized. The TEC sends the  likelihood  values  to  the  respective
ingress  node,  who  will   distribute  the  received  packets of the
traffic stream to the pertaining LSPs accordingly."

I might misread this, but the IP paradigm has been connection less from
the start, and very much of the success of IP is because of its of this
connection less nature. I do see that we "violate" this little bit by
some of the proposals that has been discussed in the mpls and te 
working groups - for what I believe is good reasons. However we should
take extreme care of keeping the connection less nature of IP
networks.

The Orchestrated Conducted Traffic draft seems to take an extreme 
connection oriented approach. We should take care not throw the
baby, bath tub and bath water out at the same time.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson
Director Routing Architecture Lab, EMEA
St Eriksgatan 115A, PO Box 6701
113 85 Stockholm, Sweden
phone: +46 8 50 88 36 34,   mobile + 46 70 522 78 34
e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:31:39 -0500

> baby, bath tub and bath water out at the same time.

I believe there was no comment because there was no interest.
Generally people say nothing rather than expressing no interest but
since Hummel has asked what happenned I'll acknowledge having read the
draft and when it was sent to the mailing list and having reread it
just now and having no interest in pursuing it.

I must also admit that the intellectual property section is quite
ominous for a draft with so little intellectual content.  IMHO the WGs
should not even consider a draft which appears to be so encumberred.
The idea of basing traffic engineering on load is certainly not a new
idea.  The idea of collecting loading inforamtion at a central
location for the purpose of offline analysis and traffic engineering
is not a new idea.  The idea of pushing date out to a centralized
collection site rather than pulling the data is not new.  I must admit
that I don't see what new idea could possibly be considered for
intellectual property protection.  If there is a specific combination
of these ideas that Seimens is trying to patent, then the IETF should
avoid producing any standard utilizing that specific combination based
on the combination being encumberred.

Curtis