1 / 7

Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava

Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava. Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains. draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-02. Outline. Main Changes Open issues Next steps. Main changes.

yannis
Télécharger la présentation

Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-02

  2. Outline Main Changes Open issues Next steps

  3. Main changes All comments worked out according to decisions taken on mailing list and IETF 83 meeting in Paris: Draft is not any more assuming that: More than one IEAs between same pair of PCN edge nodes should be supported PCN-ingress should be able to reduce bandwidth of an individual flow without terminating flow

  4. Main changes Draft is now specifying that added PCN objects of C-type: RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs are carried by aggregated Resv message.

  5. Issues Issue 1: Intended status Standards track or Experimental Draft is specifying RSVP signaling for CL (RFC6661) and SM (RFC6662) edge behaviours, which are both experimental Should RSVP over PCN draft be intended for standards track or experimental track?

  6. Issues Issue 2: IANA section not clear IANA section not clear enough; it does not specify in which registry the code points should be registered and IANA information distributed across draft Proposed solution: Collect all relevant information in IANA considerations section Point out in what registry code points are to be entered Check out what information required to appropriately fill particular registry

  7. Next steps Update draft based on received comments Assign one or more reviewers from RSVP directorate Other

More Related