Subject: [PCN] "PCN forwarding" is comparable to which PHB

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:15:44 +0100

Hi all,

we say that PCN-based AC & FT implement a controlled load (CL) service 
in a DiffServ network, right? Note that CL is an IntServ term, not a 
DiffServ term. Is this service more similar to EF PHB or AS PHB in 
DiffServ? I guess it's the first one, right?

Regards,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:12:15 -0000

I seem to remember reading a very clear description of this in the original CL drafts... I'm not sure if there is an exact parallel DiffServ service defined but I would tend to more think of it as providing AF but because of the virtual queues the service will be as good as EF. Does that make any kind of sense or am I just rambling?

Toby

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Michael Menth
Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 20:15
To: pcn
Subject: [PCN] "PCN forwarding" is comparable to which PHB
 
Hi all,

Regards,

    Michael

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

---

From: Kwok Ho Chan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:38:46 -0400

Hi Michael, Toby:
I think I am showing a bit of my age here, but all for the good cause 
of the Internet. :)

For IntServ, there was Controlled Load and Guaranteed Service (and 
another service at earlier time).
IMHO, both EF and AF of DiffServ are implementation of Control Load.
(i.e. DiffServ does not provide per micro-flow Guarantees the way 
Guaranteed Service does).
Hence CL can be used for both EF and AF.
And in real life, one can use different types of queuing (more 
specifically scheduler design)
to realize the service for EF and the service for AF.

But for PCN, we were initially focusing on "Real-Time" interactive 
traffic services that possibly
does not use TCP in the transport layer.  Hence we were thinking of 
the EF behavior,
but I don't think we are limited to just EF behavior.
We may be able to look at the problem statement draft we created when 
we were starting
the PCN WG.

Thanks!
-- Kwok --

At 06:12 AM 3/12/2009, [email-masked] wrote:

>I seem to remember reading a very clear description of this in the 
>original CL drafts... I'm not sure if there is an exact parallel 
>DiffServ service defined but I would tend to more think of it as 
>providing AF but because of the virtual queues the service will be 
>as good as EF. Does that make any kind of sense or am I just rambling?
>
>Toby
>