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

I agree. This would be valuable work…

Rong

From: <Scheffenegger>, Richard <rs@netapp.com<mailto:rs@netapp.com>>
Date: Monday, November 4, 2013 5:48 PM
To: Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com<mailto:mattmathis@google.com>>, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com<mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com>>
Cc: "draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org>>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

(aqm chair hat off)

I can fully support what Matt just stated!

I have read an earlier version (-01 iirc), I’ll try to scan over this version in the coming days.

Richard Scheffenegger

From: aqm-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matt Mathis
Sent: Montag, 04. November 2013 15:17
To: Bob Briscoe
Cc: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@tools.ietf.org>; tsvwg IETF list; AQM IETF list
Subject: Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

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