Loa Andersson | 1 Jul 16:04 2004
Picon

(unknown)

WG,

it is time to start putting the agenda for the San Diego meeting.
Please send request for agenda slots to the wg-chairs.

Without discouraging any other discusion we've clear commitments
from people mergin the two P2MP TE proposals that there will be a
draft out before the cut-off. We'v also a promiss from the OAM
framework DT that their draft will meet the dealine. So a healthy
chank of the agenda will be spent on those two drafts.

Loa and George

/Loa
Loa Andersson
+46 739 81 21 64

Loa Andersson | 1 Jul 16:18 2004
Picon

MPLS wg agenda for San Diego - requesting agenda slots


WG, (I'm doing this from a web-mail reader that I'm not familiar
     with, so excuse me for forgetting subject line and resending)

it is time to start putting the agenda for the San Diego meeting.
Please send request for agenda slots to the wg-chairs.

Without discouraging any other discusion we've clear commitments
from people mergin the two P2MP TE proposals that there will be a
draft out before the cut-off. We'v also a promiss from the OAM
framework DT that their draft will meet the dealine. So a healthy
chank of the agenda will be spent on those two drafts.

Loa and George

/Loa

Loa Andersson
+46 739 81 21 64

Curtis Villamizar | 1 Jul 19:53 2004
Picon

Re: wg last call soft preemption question


In message <1088547536.899736748cd86 <at> webmail.pi.se>
Loa Andersson writes:
>  
> All,
>  
> in the motiviation (section 2) for the
> draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt it
> is stated that through the preemption as defined in rfc3209 traffic
> on the "to be preempted LSP" is (unnecessarily) abruptly preempted.
> The transit traffic is disregarded.
> I guess this is true, but isn't the (the most common) case here that
> the preemting LSP has a higher priority than the preemepted, and if
> you withhold the preemption, waiting for the traffic on the preempted
> LSP to be taken care of, you will waste traffic with higher priority
> during that wait?
>  
> /Loa

Not at all if you are also using diffserv.  The lower priority traffic
does not see an outage but will see some congestion.  For most types
of Internet services this is more desirable than an outage.

Also, in another use of soft preemption, the preempted LSP may be a
backup for other traffic which may or may not be in use.  If a subset
of backups are in use, you may see temporary congesstion, but all of
the traffic is in reality of equal importance in this usage.  If you
hard preempt these you don't have congestion, but you have an outage
that exceeds the time threshhold that you were trying to acheive with
the backup scheme (FRR or standby from the ingress).
(Continue reading)

Zinin | 6 Jul 05:58 2004

Re: Hi


This notification was inserted in order to inform you of CHANGES that have
occurred to this email message. 

Due to the impact from several email-bourne viruses, restrictions have been
placed on the types of attachments that will be allowed through the MCI Email system.

With the safety of MCI business in mind, the .com      
attachment(s) was removed from the message and deleted. The attachment is not saved. 

If this attachment(s) was business related please contact Ehelp at
https://wwwint.mcilink/ehelp/home.rbx for alternative methods to deliver your
attachment.
Zinin | 6 Jul 15:26 2004

Incoming message


Zinin | 6 Jul 08:28 2004

Notification


Zinin | 7 Jul 08:28 2004

Forum notify


This notification was inserted to inform you of CHANGES that
have occurred to this email message. Due to the impact from
several email-bourne viruses, restrictions have been placed
on the types of attachments that will be allowed through
the MCI Email system.

With the safety of MCI business in mind, the .zip attachment(s)
was removed from the message and deleted. The attachment is
not saved. If this attachment(s) was business related, please
contact Ehelp at http://ehelp.mcilink.com for alternative
methods to deliver your attachment.
Zinin | 7 Jul 22:04 2004

Re: Incoming Message


Zinin | 8 Jul 06:46 2004

Re: Incoming Message


Eric Gray | 7 Jul 19:51 2004

New MPLS mailing list

Folks,

	You are receiving this mail message because you are already
subscribed to the new MPLS mailing list mpls <at> lists.ietf.org. Eric
Rosen and I are in the process of transitioning from the previous
mailing list (mpls <at> UU.Net) to this new mailing list.

	Please post all future MPLS working group electronic mail to
this new mailing list. During some period of time, mail will be 
forwarded from the previous mailing list to this list, but - while
this is true - mail sent to the old list may be received by MPLS
mailing list participants more than once. As soon as it appears no
non-junk mail is still being posted to the previous mailing list,
that list may be shutdown.

	Thanks in advance...

--
Eric Gray

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


Gmane