[conex] "Congestion" vs. "Congestion Volume"

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 25 October 2011 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B7721F8BB9 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xw1HRCzSj9Rb for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E07821F8B94 for <conex@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 3CCF133C20; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:42:15 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: ConEx IETF list <conex@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20111025154215.GJ57720@verdi>
References: <20111025104324.3865.89586.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AE5704A-620C-46DA-B9DE-E42F9E7F356C@cdt.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1AE5704A-620C-46DA-B9DE-E42F9E7F356C@cdt.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: [conex] "Congestion" vs. "Congestion Volume"
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:42:15 -0000

Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

   This I-D defines "Congestion" and "Congestion Volume". While the
definitions are mostly right IMHO, there are inevitable problems as
the terms are used later in the document.

   Inevitably we must use "level of congestion" in a few places.
Which does it refer to? I'd argue that it's not always one or the
other. In some places it's clearly bytes-on-the-wire dropped; in
others it's clearly percentage of packets dropped. I'd recommend
that we clarify that "level of congestion" may have different
meanings in different places along the path.

   Also, we use "quotas" in a few places. The implementation of
quotas, IMHO, is unlikely to be the same everywhere. Some quotas
will count packets regardless of size; others may count bytes,
but are likely to count bytes differently: I doubt we can expect
the count to be bytes-on-the-wire consistently.

   In IPv6, bytes-on-the-wire can differ considerably from bytes
of payload, and I would expect some users to argue that they
shouldn't be charged for anything beyond payload. As an ISP, I
know "winning" such arguments is Pyrrhic.

   (This much should suffice for starting the discussion. ;^)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>