Subject: [PCN] Edge behaviours

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:02:38 -0000

Tom
I've lost track of what's happening with the edge behaviours. I guess
there's another rev following Hiroshima meeting? I should have time to
do a review of something next couple of weeks, but I guess would be
better to review a new version?

Thanks
phil

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:58:25 -0500

Yes, I'll be doing updates. I got a bit behind due to illness before Christmas, 
but I'm starting to move forward now.

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

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:17:37 -0500

Before I reissue the edge behaviour drafts, I'd like to get agreement on what 
I'd put into them.

In Hiroshima we agreed that WHAT would be conveyed would be the measured rates 
of unmarked, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked traffic 
(octets/second). This provides flexibility for future usages.

For the open issue of WHEN these measurements would be sent and the inter-twined 
issue of whether measurements would be smoothed, I propose the following:

1) Measurements would be taken over periods of a recommended 100 to 300 ms 
duration and rates would be calculated at the end of each period. This implies a 
certain amount of smoothing, of course.

2) No other smoothing would be mentioned.

3) As an optimization, if traffic rates are zero for a given aggregate, the 
egress node MAY skip sending a report to the ingress node. This leads to a 
keepalive discussion. One possibility is that reporting backs off from every 
measurement interval to once a second or so while traffic rates are zero. If 
there are other means for the ingress node to be assured that the egress node is 
alive and doing its job, this would be unnecessary.