Subject: [PCN] thoughts for draft-charny-pcn-single-marking-02

From: "Tina TSOU" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:09:54 -0500

Hi all,

Some thoughts came to my mind for draft-charny-pcn-single-marking-02.txt as below.

1)      If the single marking scheme could solve all the problems that the dual marking scheme could, only with very little tradeoffs? What are the biggest tradeoffs?

2)      If single marking can solve all the problems, why not consider give up dual marking approach?

3)      Per draft-charny-pcn-single-marking-02, single marking approach can transit to dual marking approach, why not directly design the dual marking directly, is there reason to keep the single marking approach?

4)      A) How to mark the interim node? Single marking approach requires marking Excess Traffic; dual marking approach does not require this, so they are impossible to be compatible with each other at this point. May dual marking approach adopt only mark Excess Traffic method, whatever for Admission Rate or Termination Rate?

B) Egress and Ingress measurement basis and decision basis are different for single marking and dual marking approaches. Via the configuration to let both working modes work together, both modes can co-exist, but in fact they don’t have compatibility. Then why do we do it?

C) Since single marking and dual marking don’t have compatibility, and solve the almost the same problem, do we need to select and only keep one approach?

Tks:)

B. R.

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