Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes
draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Philip Eardley | ||
| Last updated | 2008-06-26 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document standardises the two marking behaviours of PCN-nodes: threshold marking and excess traffic marking. Threshold marking marks all PCN-packets if the PCN traffic rate is greater than a first configured rate. Excess traffic marking marks a proportion of PCN- packets, such that the amount marked equals the traffic rate in excess of a second configured rate.Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)