Subject: RE: [NSIS] Next steps for the analysis document

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:59:25 +0100

hi all,

personally, i would be very interested to see a summary of the 
sort of requirements and tradeoffs that people have taken into
account in building protocols that support inter-domain
aggregation of some sort (which is basically BGRP and SICAP, 
AFAIK). since both these protocols are somewhat experimental,
i would find a high-level comparison with commonalities and differences
more enlightening than a detailed description of one or the other.

i won't go so far as to say that understading RFC3175 changed
my life, but it was certainly an interesting experience. 
i would expect the interdomain case to be likewise.

such a comparison is non-trivial work, of course. it may be
that a reference to the appropriate papers covers most of the 
ground.

r.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 14:32
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] Next steps for the analysis document
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> > 2) Add a short review of SICAP, a protocol similar to BGRP? 
> (See Helena
> > Rute Sofia's email on July 16th 2003) (SICAP description 
> July 17th 2003)
> > 
> > 3) What about adding an RMD evaluation? Or any other text? 
> (see Georgios'
> > email on July 17 2003) (some discussions July 17th -> July 
> 22nd, Sep 5)
> 
> I prefer to have some people, other than the backers of these 
> protocols, to 
> speak up on behalf of their inclusion into the analysis 
> document.  If noone 
> else in the WG is interested in these protocols, then it 
> seems that there
> is no interest in these protocols.
> 
> thanks,
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:44:53 +0200

Hi Robert,

> more enlightening than a detailed description of one or the other.

This sounds reasonable. Inter-domain aggregation is not easy but IMHO
important, and, as I understood one of the early NSIS charters,
inter-domain signaling was one of the major missing pieces. I also did
some research in this area (dynamic hierarchical reservation aggregation
at AS level, similar to SICAP but even more flexible). Though this is
surely experimental work (so far simulated in a real AS topology of 5500
ASes) it may give some hints to problems and solutions in inter-domain
aggregation issues. The signaling protocol uses optimized signaling
procedures for aggregate establishment and adaptation in order to reduce
the overall signaling/reservation setup latency. Thus, the signaling
protocol could be designed to provide optimized support for aggregation.

> i would expect the interdomain case to be likewise.

Definitely.

> that a reference to the appropriate papers covers most of the 

Regards,
 Roland

---

From: "Rute Sofia" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Oct 2003 14:36:54 +0000

All,

Inter-domain signaling is no doubt important and according to the 
current NSLP-QoS signaling draft, it is a necessary step, to be 
approached as future work. In such context, it is also necessary to have 
some survey about approaches that analysed that problem up to now. In 
terms of state required, signaling load, and bandwidth, the more 
"concrete" proposals are BGRP (and consequent updates, e.g., BGRP+) or 
SICAP.  By "concrete" I mean that these  proposals are currently the 
only ones approaching the problem considering not only 
algorithmic/optimization issues but also design issues (message types 
and format; how to get information from BGP, border routers; will that 
scale; which information; etc.).

So, it is my (possibly biased :) ) opinion that it is important to 
address such work as inter-domain aggregation "related work", and the 
right place to do so is the analysis draft.

I fully agree with Robert when he states that a comparison of the 
proposals is interesting and needed. We did compare SICAP and BGRP up to 
a good extent; we created ns2 modules for both protocols, created 
several scenarios and tried to use data as close as possible to reality. 
So, such comparison is addressed in any of the papers SICAP gave rise 
to. The comparison was performed in terms of state information required 
at border routers, signaling load and bandwidth usage efficiency. So, 
perhaps a reference to the proper papers, as Robert mentioned, is enough.

Regards,
Rute

---

From: "Rute Sofia" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Oct 2003 16:13:25 +0000

>
> this sounds quite interesting.
> do you have the results in document you could make available?

Sure,

SICAP papers are available at:
- http://einstein.seas.upenn.edu/mnlab/paper/hpsr03_paper3743.pdf
(sicap's design, BGRP comparison)
- http://einstein.seas.upenn.edu/mnlab/paper/tr_or_230703.pdf
(optimizing the signaling load of both BGRP and SICAP)

Furthermore, the full set of papers and corresponding technical reports 
is available at:
http://rutesofia.no.sapo.pt/researche.html

Regards,
Rute

---

From: "H.DeMeer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:15:35 +0200

Rute,

At 14:36 21/10/2003 +0000, Rute Sofia wrote:
>All,
>
>Inter-domain signaling is no doubt important and according to the current 
>NSLP-QoS signaling draft, it is a necessary step, to be approached as 
>future work. In such context, it is also necessary to have some survey 
>about approaches that analysed that problem up to now. In terms of state 
>required, signaling load, and bandwidth, the more "concrete" proposals are 
>BGRP (and consequent updates, e.g., BGRP+) or SICAP.  By "concrete" I mean 
>that these  proposals are currently the only ones approaching the problem 
>considering not only algorithmic/optimization issues but also design 
>issues (message types and format; how to get information from BGP, border 
>routers; will that scale; which information; etc.).
>
>So, it is my (possibly biased :) ) opinion that it is important to address 
>such work as inter-domain aggregation "related work", and the right place 
>to do so is the analysis draft.
>
>proposals is interesting and needed. We did compare SICAP and BGRP up to a 
>good extent; we created ns2 modules for both protocols, created several 
>scenarios and tried to use data as close as possible to reality. So, such 
>comparison is addressed in any of the papers SICAP gave rise to. The 
>comparison was performed in terms of state information required at border 
>routers, signaling load and bandwidth usage efficiency. So, perhaps a 
>reference to the proper papers, as Robert mentioned, is enough.

Regards,
      Hermann