Re: CCAMP Last call on draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-06.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

I have been explicitly asked to lengthen this last call so as to allow time 
for a review.

Unusual, but not unreasonable.

The last call is extended to noon on Sunday 17th December.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: <jau@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; 
"Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>; <mpls@lists.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: CCAMP Last call on draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-06.txt


> Hi,
>
> This draft has been developed independently and has recently been brought 
> to the IESG for advancement as an individual submission to become an 
> Informational RFC. I have done a first-level review and this latest 
> revision includes updates to reflect my comments.
>
> Since the material here concerns preemption and the suggested ways to 
> operate an MPLS-TE or GMPLS network, we are running a quick last call on 
> the CCAMP mailing list to ensure that no-one has any objections.
>
> Please send your comments to the CCAMP list no later than noon GMT on 13th 
> December 2006.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:50 PM
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-06.txt
>
>
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> >
> >
> > Title : LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering
> > Author(s) : J. de Oliveira, et al.
> > Filename : draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-06.txt
> > Pages : 19
> > Date : 2006-11-28
> >
> > When the establishment of a higher priority (Traffic Engineering
> >   Label Switched Path) TE LSP requires the preemption of a set of lower
> >   priority TE LSPs, a node has to make a local decision to select which
> >
> >   TE LSPs will be preempted.  The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by
> >   their respective Head-end Label Switch Router (LSR).  This document
> >   presents a flexible policy that can be used to achieve different
> >   objectives: preempt the lowest priority LSPs; preempt the minimum
> >   number of LSPs; preempt the set of TE LSPs that provide the closest
> >   amount of bandwidth to the required bandwidth for the preempting TE
> >   LSPs (to minimize bandwidth wastage); preempt the LSPs that will have
> >   the maximum chance to get rerouted.  Simulation results are given and
> >   a comparison among several different policies, with respect to
> >   preemption cascading, number of preempted LSPs, priority, wasted
> >   bandwidth and blocking probability is also included.
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-06.txt