Subject: Re: FW: draft response #18 - dynamic/stat partitioning

From: Joachim Buerkle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:34:51 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EXT Joachim Buerkle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 14 August, 1999 6:27 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: draft of draft-ietf-gsmp-msf-response-00.txt
> >
> > * Requirement #18:       dynamic/statistical partitioning
> > * GSMPv3 compliance:     PS. requirement believed to be
> > partially supported. While
> > physical resources can be statistical shared among
> > partitions, there is no support for dynamic partitioning.
> >
> > Q: May be I am not familiar enough with the MSF terms and architecture, but
> is the
> > support of statistic and dynamic partitions not a issue of the separate
> management of
> > the partitioning. I don't see where GSMP prevent that somebody defines a way
> to
> > dynamically partition the switch resources, if he ensures that the CAC and
> Routing
> > for a new connection is done on the base of (in this moment) fix VS
> partition
> > resources. Or are there some other issues which I don't see in the moment?
> >
>
> I think that the capability they are looking for is the ability to
> dynamically or statistically adjust the partitions,  via GSMP commands
> during a session.  Currently, partitioned resources are statically
> allocated to the partitions before the adjacencies are made.  There are
> no mechanisms for a VSC to request a different set of resources.

Hi Avri,

if it is in this way, than it is definitely not how I want to have the
architecture.

I got told that in the earlier discussions MSF wanted this, but at the last MSF
Meeting somebody introduced a Switch Management Interface (SMI) and that at the
next meeting (next week?) there will be further discussion about it, i.e. it
seems that they want to make a distinction between Switch Control and Switch
Management respectively between Switch Control Interface and Switch Management
Interface.

My view is still that GSMP is and shall be independent from *how* the
partitioning is done.
My view is still that applications just want to control the switch resources
which are currently allocated by them. They don't care for the resources which
are left in the switch. They are requesting with a connection setup further
resources, but then it is the task of the CAC (part of the Switch,  compare to
<draft-mceachern-gsmp-scireq-00.txt>, section 2.2., point (l) ) to tell them
whether in their partition are some resources left to do this connection setup)

With this explanation it is may be now also more clear why I requesting in my
Questions and Comments to <draft-ietf-gsmp-01.txt> that GSMP provides in
addition the possibility for a two step connection  setup: 1. reserve the
resources for connections and 2. make the connection.
This can be done for e.g. with the current Connection Management Message by
using the spare (x) bit in the Message:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |M|B|x|E|                  Input Label                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I started to write a draft which will propose this.

Regards
Joachim

---

From: "Simon Crosby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:02:49 -0700

> if it is in this way, than it is definitely not how I want to have the

Agreed.  The management of partitions is entirely out of band, via the SMI.
> using the spare (x) bit in the Message:

This is a good idea.

Regards

Simon

Chair, SCWG, MSForum