Subject: [PCN] PCN edge behavior for pre-6040 tunnels

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:16:41 +0200

Hi all,

at the last meeting in Prague I presented a new PCN edge behavior. The 
slides are available at:
http://atlas2.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/menth/papers/ietf-80-pcn-Menth.pdf

The AC part uses threshold-marking and is described in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menth-pcn-marked-signaling-ac-00
The FT part uses excess-traffic-marking and is described in:
http://atlas2.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/menth/papers/Menth10-Sub-8.pdf

Benefits
* supports AC and FT with legacy tunnels, but more accurate than SM
* no need to define ingress-egress-aggregates
* no need for measurements
* no need for additional PCN signalling

Requirements
* path-coupled end-to-end resource signalling per flow (e.g. RSVP or 
SIP-like signalling)
* psdm encoding for packet-specific dual marking: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-01

Note that psdm encoding is needed only to make this PCN edge behavior 
work with pre-6040 tunnels. 3-in-1 encoding may also be used but then 
all tunnels must comply with RFC6040 so that one major advange is lost.

If this method is of interest to the WG, I'll provide an ID for the next 
meeting and we know that we should keep the door open for psdm in the 
encoding options.

I would like to ask the WG whether we should continue with this new PCN 
edge behavior? The answer has impact on the required PCN encodings.

Kind regards,

     Michael

-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www-kn.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:36:41 +0200

Hi Michael,

as co-author I of course would be happy, if the draft would see some support
(it's content is ThM to perform admission control by identifying marked
signaling packets, and that's it).

You propose to add a termination method which works without IEA
measurements and feedback. So the edge behaviour is simplified
(for admission control as well as for termination).

Both methods work in the presence of ECMP, which is another clear advantage in
many backbone networks.

My personal take is, that as ECN/PCN saw little deployment in backbone
networks, pre-6040 support of tunneling may be dropped. That would allow
to use 3-in-1 marking for the proposed experimental edge behaviours.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Menth
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PCN] PCN edge behavior for pre-6040 tunnels

Hi all,

Benefits

Requirements

Kind regards,

     Michael

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn