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