IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
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 5C64021F944A for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 A4ktkhfDXE2l for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F86921F9A50 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AQY41797; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:18:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:17:13 +0100
Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:17:59 +0100
Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.204]) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:17:54 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2
Thread-Index: AQHORcAGV61z0YXM0UmIs8J6I0xlzJjvVLng
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:17:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645B16159@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B82A5E5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <517FF171.4010306@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <517FF171.4010306@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.133.188]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2
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, 30 Apr 2013 22:18:08 -0000

Wes, 

Question inserted below: 

> -----Original Message-----
> """
>    Hence, network communication to the host regarding the moderation of
>    its traffic flow SHOULD use an AQM algorithm to determine which
>    packets it should affect, and then implement that effect by marking
>    ECN-capable traffic "Congestion Experienced (CE)" or dropping non-
>    ECN-capable traffic.


[Linda] Do you mean that downstream nodes treat packets with ECN bits marked differently than that packets whose ECN bits are not marked? 
In another words, is "congestion experienced (CE)" encoded in the packets? 

Thanks, Linda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email