Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?
Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de> Tue, 05 November 2013 07:36 UTC
Return-Path: <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192FA21E8087 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:36:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnqVrf8qRjer for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx09.uni-tuebingen.de (mx09.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6383721F9D5F for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [134.2.11.131] (chaos.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.11.131]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx09.uni-tuebingen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rA57aJgw023898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:36:19 +0100
Message-ID: <52789FF5.3030907@uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 08:36:21 +0100
From: Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: aqm@ietf.org
References: <201311042203.rA4M3lo0026458@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <CAH56bmDfOxi2FBvg1P-UH-ds_WveZP4NvOyqopKdEcy5WX3XnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmDfOxi2FBvg1P-UH-ds_WveZP4NvOyqopKdEcy5WX3XnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040803080401020203000301"
X-AntiVirus: checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.2.1.26; AVE: 8.2.12.136; VDF: 7.11.110.236; host: mx09); id=25033-JlXNOw
Subject: Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:36:32 -0000
+1 We need such guidelines for consistent congestion management. Best wishes, Michael Am 05.11.2013 00:16, schrieb Matt Mathis: > I think this is valuable work. Having a single document that > describes the requirements and general principles will save future > tunnel inventor/implementers from rediscovering the same bugs > > Thanks, > --MM-- > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay > > Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our > services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat > privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some > users, they are. > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com > <mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com>> wrote: > > Folks, > > Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item > in the IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need > visibility of interest. > Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement > > Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that > Encapsulate IP > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines> > > Abstract > > The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion > notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that > encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to > propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. > Then the > IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry > congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the > transport layer (L4). Following these guidelines should assure > interworking between new lower layer congestion notification > mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards > bodies. > > > [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case] > > > Bob Briscoe, > also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org <mailto:aqm@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm -- Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth University of Tuebingen Faculty of Science Department of Computer Science Chair of Communication Networks Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505 fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220 mailto:menth@uni-tuebingen.de http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de
- [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN t… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Matt Mathis
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Michael Welzl
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Weixinpeng
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Rong Pan (ropan)
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Michael Menth
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Zhulei (A)
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Piers O'Hanlon
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Dirk Kutscher
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … philip.eardley
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… gorry
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… gorry
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Piers O'Hanlon
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Bannai, Vinay
- Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding E… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of … Ingemar Johansson S