Re: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-2-20, at 11:51, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
> It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the  
> packet itself.  While this is a possible approach, I don't see that  
> it needs to be the only one.  For example, a mechanism where the  
> mutually trusting network components would have another channel to  
> convey this information (e.g., using SNMP, IPFIX, or the like)  
> might also apply.
>
> However, to be clear, I have no objection to using the ECN field(s)  
> if that does not hinder the current use (or lack thereof) of ECN.  
> What I specifically don't want is to define new fields for PCN,  
> especially extension headers or IP options.  I should have been  
> clearer with my objection.

Right, there are multiple ways to encode and transport congestion  
information to and from the egress. The charter has a milestone for  
the WG to discuss various options before picking one for the initial  
standards-track documents:

Nov 2007 Survey of Encoding and Transport Choices of (Pre-)Congestion
Information within a DiffServ Domain (Informational)

Lars

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf