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

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 02 May 2013 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 D73B221F9A20 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 20:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 kBPuaZOb3wiW for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 20:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067B921F8556 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 20:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4239XVZ000352 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 23:09:33 -0400
Received: (qmail 12403 invoked by uid 0); 2 May 2013 03:09:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.121?) (wes@mti-systems.com@69.81.143.143) by 0 with ESMTPA; 2 May 2013 03:09:32 -0000
Message-ID: <5181D8E2.1040306@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 23:09:22 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B82A5E5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <517FF171.4010306@mti-systems.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645B16159@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645B16159@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "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: Thu, 02 May 2013 03:09:43 -0000

On 4/30/2013 6:17 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> 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? 
> 


Hi Linda, that was actually a direct quote from Fred's document, so I
can't take credit for it ... however, all that it's saying is that
the congested queue set the CE bit (when ECT is set), per normal ECN
protocol.  It isn't saying anything new about the downstream nodes that
see CE has already been set.


-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems