Subject: [NSIS] QoS analysis draft: novel inter-domain approach

From: HELENA RUTE SOFIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:40:54 -0400 (EDT)

All,

Yesterday (Monday July 14th), in the NSIS meeting, it was mentioned that
additional QoS signaling protocols could still be added to the draft
"Analysis of Existing Quality of Service Signaling Protocols".

We (myself and Roch Gue'rin) developed a novel inter-domain aggregation
signaling protocol, SICAP (Shared-Segment Inter-domain Control Aggregation
Protocol) that we thought might be of interest to the analysis above.
Being an inter-domain aggregation solution (as BGRP), SICAP was
developed not so much to be "another" alternative to BGRP, but more as
part of an "exercise" aimed at gaining a better understanding of the overall
solution space.  In particular, we felt that while the sink-tree approach
of BGRP offered clear advantages from an operational point of view, it was
not obvious if and how this affected scalability and where BGRP actually
stood, in the space of possible solutions.

So,the investigation, besides identifying a possible
alternative to BGRP (SICAP performs shared-segment aggregation), also
illustrated the existence of a range of options and
showed that further improvements in a protocol's ability to aggregate
state information were indeed feasible.

More detailed information on SICAP and the associated investigation can be
found at:
http://m306pc7.seas.upenn.edu/mnlab/paper/icnp02_173.pdf
(addresses the aggregation algorithms; presents simulation results)

http://m306pc7.seas.upenn.edu/mnlab/paper/hpsr03_paper3743.pdf
(addresses SICAP's design and compares it against BGRP)

If there is interest and a sense that this could be a useful addition to
the topics addressed in the QoS protocols analysis draft, we would be more
than happy to provide additional details.

Rute

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

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:53:04 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

We can still consider additional protocols for the analysis draft, true.  
Yet, I would like to add new protocols only if they provide new insights
to the hard problem of QoS signaling, for example, new solutions and good
ideas that we could learn from when designing the NTLP and NSLPs. So, if
you feel that SICAP has some unique properties and solutions that are not
addressed with existing protocols, you are more than welcome to provide
text. I'll try to read the documents you provided and evaluate myself the
usefulness of an evaluation of an additional protocol. Still, the decision
to add new protocols is not mine but for the whole WG and chair to decide.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: HELENA RUTE SOFIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:01:44 -0400 (EDT)

Jukka,

> to add new protocols is not mine but for the whole WG and chair to decide.

the current analysis draft covers several protocols; however, and even
though it provides input on e2e signaling protocols, there is not an explicit
division of solutions, in terms of scope (intra-domain, inter-domain).
So, in the inter-domain context, only BGRP is presented; hence, I believe
SICAP does bring additional benefits:
1) it outperforms BGRP in state;
2) it presents another type of aggregation, showing that the sink-tree is
not the only solution.

Also, given that aggregation is to be included in the next document on the
QoS-NSLP proposal, and given also that aggregation is still an open issue,
I do believe that SICAP brings a significant contribution to this field.
So, I think it should be considered in the context of the analysis
document...

Rute