Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Fred, Lars,

This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by 
implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors:
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre-02>

It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc mtg, 
but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the direction of the group.
<http://www.bobbriscoe.net/presents/1407ietf/1407dc-congestion-policing.pdf>
(I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction with 
Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres)


And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its IPR 
related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including 
royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/>



Bob

At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/signed;
>         boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8";
>         protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
>
>
>On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Xinpeng,
> >
> > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng <[e-mail]> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT