Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics

I’m also contemplating whether it needs an IPR disclosure on this:

http://www.google.com/patents/EP2258079B1?cl=en

Which I was working on at BT a few years ago.

Toby

On 27 Oct 2014, at 15:39, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Xinpeng,
>> 
>> On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng <weixinpeng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our work on tunnel-based congestion control. 
>>> The following is a link to the document.
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback/ 
>> 
>> could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about wide area networks?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
> 
> I’m scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she can comment here.
> 
> The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP.
> 
> Where I’m scratching my head is figuring out what it’s actually trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as OpenStack. It doesn’t seem to make obvious points about that such as are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I’m not sure I walked away with “so do this”.
> _______________________________________________
> Dclc mailing list
> Dclc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc