Subject: RE: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter -need for clarification

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:16:13 GMT

I'm glad you said it, so I didn't have to. '-)

- ferg

-- "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

I'm not sure it is a good omen that EME is starting off by debating X.25...
 
Why don't I just remove the mention of VCs from the charter  ;)
 
Also, I plan to submit a proposed set of requirements in the next
couple days.  That'll give us something a bit more concrete to discuss.
 
PF

From: Rémi Després [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:06 AM
To: Scott W Brim
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME
charter -need for clarification

 The connection-oriented model "per se" doesn't prohibit that
intermediate nodes keep more information than necessary for label
switching.

 As a matter of fact, in the Transpac implementation of VCs (Transpac
is the X.25 network of France Telecom), ingress and egress nodes keep
enough information to re-establish a VC, within the wan,  if  an
intermediate node failure breaks it.
 The ingress node keeps a copy of enough recent user data so that, when
the wan part of the VC is re-established, data that may have been lost
on the fly are retransmitted. End nodes are unaware of the failure.
 Would the ingress-egress protocol used for this be also used E2E, then
total recovery.of all  intermediate node failures would be achieved.

RD

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme