Comparison of Proposed PCN Approaches
draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2007-11-09
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00.txt

Abstract

Several, sometimes conflicting proposals have been offered for the consideration of the PCN WG regarding PCN internal node and PCN edge node behaviors. Based on the WG charter, the WG needs to make a decision on which of the proposed PCN-interior-node and PCN-boundary- nodes behaviors to endorse. The primary goal of this draft is twofold. First, we attempt to summarize the functional differences between the proposed alternatives. Second, we provide a brief summary of performance evaluation results. Finally we propose a view on how a (parameterized) specification of the PCN-interior-node metering and marking function can be described to enable several of the proposed behaviors. We argue that if this parameterized specification is used for specifying the PCN-interior-node behavior, then it can support a range of behaviors at the PCN-boundary-node. The decision on which of the PCN-boundary-node behaviors to choose can then be considered separately. We also discuss complexities associated with choosing such uniform approach.

Authors

Anna Charny (acharny@cisco.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)