IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Fann] Re: Existing Implementation of Fast CNP

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 28 July 2026 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: fann@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: fann@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173D611FA336E; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1785222530; bh=DrJQuxRoP8PTRo6tXKoIsV+nRc432FX/QCnqZQYzaTw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=aXkAUaBTJWk3RwrZEdJ072FnNU0Il9cqVCUsoaPsflvWq09xXPaysazewmjDxsW57 6iXDq/RsHPZRttu/a3seXkuhU5Kz9i7nIB9Jy1SSkYykROkymi/QY+7Wb9J5oItTsb 4VtZLbnWZ7P7bINdEfJbpB3Rr8J07ZsklHor8TFU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.814
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.814 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlgDhDsbglHE; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [160.30.148.35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1663311FA3367; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4h8RQQ6tdKz8Xrrd; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:08:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app01.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.136]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 66S78UCB013841; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:08:30 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:08:32 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc6a6855704b6-17364
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20260728150832600rJIqUjW9lqJQ6gUk4nENK@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <2026072814421492204776@chinaunicom.cn>
References: 20260727111937508ccHgo_89Cf9X1tWBoyG5C@zte.com.cn,2026072814421492204776@chinaunicom.cn
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:08:32 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: hanzx21@chinaunicom.cn
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 66S78UCB013841
X-TLS: YES
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.132 unknown Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:08:46 +0800
X-CLEAN: YES
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6A68557E.002/4h8RQQ6tdKz8Xrrd
Message-ID-Hash: 2IF5UIPC3K44UEX5F7UZK6TIVDWHSDJJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2IF5UIPC3K44UEX5F7UZK6TIVDWHSDJJ
X-MailFrom: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: fann@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Fann] Re: Existing Implementation of Fast CNP
List-Id: "Fast Network Notifications (fann) Working Group" <fann.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fann/OYEIU5kdRsOX9nyWFrMposFreLw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/fann>
List-Help: <mailto:fann-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:fann-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:fann@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:fann-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:fann-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Zhengxin,

Thank you for the question.
In my presentation at IETF 126, I presented a few problems for Fast CNP when DCI by IP WAN. AFAIK no existing implementation has resolved the problems I raised. So that's exactly what I suggest the FANN WG to work on.

Cheers,
Xiao Min


Original


From: 韩政鑫(联通集团本部) <hanzx21@chinaunicom.cn>
  
To: 肖敏10093570;fann <fann@ietf.org>;rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>;
  
Date: 2026年07月28日 14:42
  
Subject: [Fann] Re: Existing Implementation of Fast CNP
  


_______________________________________________
Fann mailing list -- fann@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to fann-leave@ietf.org
 Hi Xiaomin,


      Thanks for sharing the white paper. I noticed it mainly covers Fast CNP for switches within data centers. Has it also been implemented or considered in routers for WAN scenarios? 


cheers,
Zhengxin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


韩政鑫
中国联合网络通信有限公司研究院   下一代互联网研究部
邮箱：hanzx21@chinaunicom.cn
电话：18601275531
通信地址：北京市海淀区首体南路9号主语国际3号楼



 

From: xiao.min2
Date: 2026-07-27 11:19
To: fann
Subject: [Fann] Existing Implementation of Fast CNP



【本邮件为外部邮件，请注意核实发件人身份，并谨慎处理邮件内容中的链接及附件】 

Hi all,

At IETF 126 the first FANN WG meeting I presented the problems and gap analysis for Fast CNP.
After the meeting my co-author Zehua Hu sent me a white paper on the existing implementation of Fast CNP.
By using this link (https://cloudswit.ch/whitepapers/fast-cnp-congestion-notification-technology/) you may read that white paper and know more details on the existing implementation of Fast CNP. AFAIK at least H3C and ZTE have implemented Fast CNP in the similar way.

Also note that I've resubmitted the three RTGWG individual drafts relevant to my presentation in FANN WG. Links as below.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiao-fann-fast-cnp-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiao-fann-fast-cnp-with-proxy-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiao-fann-congestion-notification-for-pause-00
Welcome your review and comments!

Cheers,
Xiao Min

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status