A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Single PCN Threshold Marking by using PCN baseline encoding for both admission and termination controls
Author(s) : D. Satoh, Y. Maeda, O. Phanachet, H. Ueno
Filename : draft-satoh-pcn-st-marking-01.txt
Pages : 36
Date : 2009-3-9
[I-D.ietf.pcn.architecture] defines two rates, admissible and
supportable, per link that divide PCN traffic load into three states.
PCN admission control and flow termination mechanisms operate in
accordance with these three states. [I-D.ietf.pcn.baseline.encoding]
defines one bit for packet marking. This document proposes an
algorithm for marking and metering by using pre-congestion
notification (PCN) baseline encoding for both flow admission and flow
termination. The ratio of marked packets determines the three link
states: no packets marked, some packets marked, and all packets
marked. To achieve this marking behaviour, we use two token buckets.
One is not used for marking but for a marking switch; the other is
used for marking. The token bucket for marking has two thresholds.
One is TBthreshold.threshold, already defined in [I-D.ietf-pcn-
marking-behaviour], and the other is a new threshold, which is set to
be the number of bits of a metered-packet smaller than the token
bucket size. Therefore, the new threshold is larger than
TBthreshold.threshold. If the amount of tokens is less than
TBthreshold.threshold, all the packets are marked as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour]. If the amount of tokens is less
than the new threshold and greater than TBthreshold.threshold, one-
Nth packets are marked. We evaluated the performance of admission
control and flow termination using a simulation. For admission
control, the results show that the performance of the algorithm was
almost the same as, but slightly inferior to, that of CL
[draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-phb-03]. For flow termination, the
performance of the algorithm was almost the same as CL when the load
was 1.2 times the supportable rate, but it was superior to CL when
the load was high (two times the supportable rate). Furthermore, in
the algorithm, over termination percentages of all the bottleneck
links are almost the same in the case of multi-bottleneck. In CL,
the over termination percentages of all the bottleneck links are
different and those at upstream bottleneck links are higher than
those at downstream bottleneck links because of accumulation of
marked packets.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-satoh-pcn-st-marking-01.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
- <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-satoh-pcn-st-marking-01.txt>
-
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
