Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> Tue, 05 November 2013 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
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 0FFC111E81A5; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:50:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 F9WpsJYx1RJS; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD1711E8186; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43768105F1A; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:44:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AA3b28iFxMZx; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:44:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E19105F17; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:43:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.11]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:49:34 +0100
From: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
To: Piers O'Hanlon <p.ohanlon@gmail.com>, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?
Thread-Index: AQHO2gtteH36tQ1iVEKiOjJC7yWNSZoWYy5w
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:49:34 +0000
Message-ID: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F52496383930E@PALLENE.office.hd>
References: <201311042203.rA4M3lo0026458@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <8677FF97-849C-40A6-AE71-AE7ED18570E0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8677FF97-849C-40A6-AE71-AE7ED18570E0@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.99.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 08:51:56 -0800
Cc: "draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org" <draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] 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 09:50:39 -0000

Hi,

As earlier indicated, I'd like to see this document being adopted as a tsvwg work item.

I'd be happy to help with reviewing.

Best regards,
Dirk




> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Piers O'Hanlon
> Sent: Dienstag, 5. November 2013 10:43
> To: Bob Briscoe
> Cc: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org; tsvwg IETF list;
> AQM IETF list
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or
> tunnel protocols?
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> I took a brief look at the draft and it's clearly useful work.
> 
> One thing that could do with clarification in the Introduction is that ECN - by
> itself - doesn't necessarily lead to low loss and delay - it should be made clear
> that it reflects the marking approach of the underlying scheme/AQM.
> 
> Piers
> 
> On 4 Nov 2013, at 22:03, Bob Briscoe 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