Subject: [PCN] (no subject)

From: "Lars Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:54:19 +0200

Hi,
From the PCN architecture draft that I have read and from the
discussions that I have followed I see that PCN is currently only
supporting the trunk aggregation model, where ingress-egreess-aggregated
states are used. Thus each ingress and egress will use per each ingress
- egress set one aggregated state.

In am concerned about the scalabillity to large networks. This is due to
the
N^2 trunk mesh of trunks, where N represents the number of edges in a
network.

I think it would be good if PCN could support the HOSE model, where no
aggregation states are used to model a bandwidth limit.  Therefore, I
would recommend to look into PCN -extention for HOSE type scenario.

comments?

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

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 19:06:43 +0200

Hi Lars
 
I would like to rephrase the subject title of your email that you sent this
morning?
Do you agree with the subject title?
 
Best regards,
Georgios

  _____  

From: Lars Westberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: woensdag 2 april 2008 14:54
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Georgios Karagiannis
Subject: 

Hi, 
From the PCN architecture draft that I have read and from the discussions
that I have followed I see that PCN is currently only supporting the trunk
aggregation model, where ingress-egreess-aggregated states are used. Thus
each ingress and egress will use per each ingress - egress set one
aggregated state.

In am concerned about the scalabillity to large networks. This is due to the

I think it would be good if PCN could support the HOSE model, where no
aggregation states are used to model a bandwidth limit.  Therefore, I would
recommend to look into PCN -extention for HOSE type scenario.

comments? 

-lasse