Re: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)

[[e-mail]]

Does anyone have data?

I'm not sure that it helps people to say there is research in evaluating
the potential for ECN to save CPU cycles. I'm intrigued, and I'd like to
see the research. But is this something we should add.

Gorry

> Hi Wes
> I am happy with a note as a potential benefit for future exploration.
>
> -Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:03 PM
> To: Steve Baillargeon
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit
> Congestion Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC
> (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)
>
> On 12/1/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
>> Hi
>> Sorry to come so late with a comment.
>> Is it too late to add one more benefit to the draft?
>>
>> I suspect ECN brings potential and significant savings in CPU cycles and
>> memory usage , especially on the "server side" terminating a large
>> number of TCP connections.
>> Has anyone done any analysis to confirm or contradict this assumption?
>>
>
>
> Hi Steve, thanks for the comment.
>
> I don't think I've seen anyone analyze that before, and would guess at the
> moment that it's too tenuous to try to work into this particular document
> at its advanced stage.
>
> I would recommend continuing discussion or research on this in AQM, TSVWG,
> ICCRG or other appropriate groups at the moment, but not altering the
> draft.  At the ADs, and editors discretion, and if there seems to be
> working group consensus, it might be noted as a potential benefit for
> future exploration, but that's about the only impact I think might be
> appropriate to this particular document at its advanced stage.
>