The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Nov> msg00277



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

E-LSP or L-LSP

  • From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <sasha@iprad.co.il>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:41:35 +0200
  • Cc: "mpls@UU. NET" <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Importance: Normal



______________________________________________
With best regards,
Sasha Vainshtein
mailto: sasha@iprad.co.il
phone: +972-3-7659993 (office)
fax:      +972-3-6487779 (office)


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of
>>Daniel N. Bauer
>>Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:49 AM
>>To: brunner@ccrle.nec.de; Shahram Davari
>>Cc: Simeone Mastropietro; mpls@UU.NET
>>Subject: Re: E-LSP or L-LSP
>>
>>
>>Shahram, Marcus,
>>
>>What about the following thought:
>>
>>For an E-LSP, the aggregate bandwidth is known. This aggregate bandwidth
>>corresponds to the sum of bandwidths that are requested for each PHB class
>>that are carried inside the E-LSP. In case that the distribution of the
>>PHB classes is known, then admission control could be carried out.
>>In networks where resources are pre-allocated per PHB class
>>and where this is done consistently on all LSR, then the distribution
>>of the pre-allocated resources can be used to carry out admission control
>>per E-LSP.
>>
>>For example, consider the following distribution:
>>EF gets 5%, AF1.x gets 10%, AF2.x gets 20%, AF3.x gets 20%, AF4.x
>>gets 20%;
>>meaning that on a 100Mbit/s link, EF could reserve up to 5
>>Mbit/s, AF1.x up
>>to 10Mbit/s, etc. etc.
>>
>>If now an E-LSP requests 7 Mbit/s and this E-LSP carries EF,
>>AF1.x and AF3.x
>>traffic, then the 7 Mbit/s could be split up and assigned to the classes
>>as follows:
>>EF - 1 Mbit/s
>>AF1.x - 2 Mbit/s
>>AF3.x - 4 Mbit/s
>>according to the 'weights' of the resource distribution.
>>Then, admission control for each class could be done seperately. The E-LSP
>>could be admitted if all of the admission control checks succeed.
>>
>>Does this sound reasonable?
Sorry, to me it does not - please consider the case when you do not need any
more LSPs carrying EF traffic in this LSR.
>>
>>Of course, the whole scheme does not work if the pre-allocated
>>resource distribution
>>is not consistent amont all LSR routers.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>-Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>Marcus Brunner wrote:
>>>
>>> Shahram,
>>>
>>> In many scenarios, the admission control for a PBH scheduling classes is
>>> already fuzzy, which means on a statistical level, you will run into
>>> trouble if you want to do admission control for aggregates of different
>>> PHB classes.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> Shahram Davari wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Daniel,
>>> >
>>> > You can do admission control for E-LSP too. But the admission
>>control is done for the aggregate of all supported PHBs in that LSP.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > -Shahram
>>


  • Follow-Ups:
  • References: