I missed the wording change on the definition of U. I thought there
should have been a change, but failed to find the right E-mail.
We did make changes based on the ECMP issue.
On 12/03/2012 2:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I am very confused about the state of this. My skimming of the thread seems to
indicate at least one unresolved issue.
Russ
On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The clarification on U is very helpful. I look forward to comments from others
on the routing based behavior / ECMP text removal / replacement question.
On 1/2/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Menth wrote:
Hi Joel, hi Tom,
Am 02.01.2012 18:18, schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
Michael, I am not sure what to make of your recommended text abut ECMP.
ECMP is used by almost all operators. It is generally considered a
necessary tool in the tool-kit.
More significantly, at least for the egress understanding of the
ingress, it is not even the single operator's ECMP, but other
operators selections of paths that produce the issue. So even in the
unlikely event that this operator does not use ECMP, it still is not
sufficient.
Then I better leave the ECMP issue for others to answer.
The definition of U can be better corrected as follows (improved
rewording of my previous email):
U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to
PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain.
->
U is a domain-wide constant which implicitly defines the
PCN-supportable-rate by U*PCN-admissible-rate on all links of the PCN
domain.
Best wishes,
Michael
Yours,
Joel
...
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
