[e2e] admission control vs congestion control

jjackson@billyjoe.canc.com jjackson at billyjoe.canc.com
Tue Apr 18 15:20:31 PDT 2006

I'm probably stating the obvious, but from a service provider perspective it is much easier to keep throwing bandwidth at the problem. In my experience, the only use of MPLS-TE is MPLS-FRR using loose paths and DiffServ in the forwarding plane. There are now some IETF drafts for IP-FRR w/o MPLS.


On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 10:22:28AM -0500, Lisong Xu wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> > The usual reason given for avoiding admission models is that people
> > don't want to build large amounts of state into the network. Having
> > said that, network operators then build MPLS  or other circuit-switch
> > infrastructures, and perhaps engineer those routes to maximize the
> > traffic they can send over them or to maximize their ability to
> > recover cleanly from failures. This involves a *lot* of state in the
> > network, much more than bandwidth admission techniques call for.
> I agree with you that "people don't want to build large amounts of
> state into the network." But there are also admission control methods
> that do not build any state into the network, such as probing-based
> methods. Why these methods have not been widely accepted and
> implemented? I guess the tcp friendliness is one of the reasons, are
> there any other fundamental reasons?
> Thanks
> Lisong

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list