Re: [re-ECN] Fwd: RE: Fwd: Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF inHiroshima?

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Dirk,

Thanks. I've incorporated your comments...

...except the one about the general Internet - yes it would be 
interesting, but we have to show that we are being careful - any use 
of experimental values in the IP header has to be possible to unwind 
if the experiment proves unsuccessful. Hope that's reasonable.


Bob

At 08:49 07/09/2009, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>The outline looks good. Maybe one comment:
>
>For the proposal, it could be worthwhile to point out that there is 
>a chance to do congestion accountability as a general Internet 
>approach, not limited to a particular environment, which is why it 
>should be done in IETF.
>
>Having said that, I wonder whether we should look at some 
>scenario-specific technical issues that might occur, e.g., when 
>doing congestion accounting in mobile scenarios (where it could be 
>of particular interest). This could also be a topic for the 
>experiments and the focused work on deployments. Somebody else 
>mentioned interactions with tunnels also.
>
>Anyway, I think this should go forward and would be interested to support it.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Dirk
>
>--
>Dr. Dirk Kutscher
>NEC Laboratories Europe
>
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, 
>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>Behalf Of Bob Briscoe
>Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 1:35 AM
>To: Woundy, Richard; COURCOUBETIS, Costas; Steven BLAKE; Marcelo 
>BAGNULO BRAUN; MONCASTER, Toby; Agarwal, Anil; Tom Taylor; Ken 
>Carlberg; Leslie Daigle; BOWMAN Don
>Cc: re-ECN unIETF list
>Subject: [re-ECN] Fwd: RE: Fwd: Pls bash: Congestion Exposure 
>(re-ECN) BoF inHiroshima?
>
>Folks,
>
>I'm throwing in the towel tonight. I'll get up early manyana and try
>to get out a full draft of the BoF proposal before I get on a plane
>to Athens (middayish UTC Mon).
>
>Any more comments on the draft structure below so far?
>
>Following offlist comments, I'll probably be taking out the IETF
>Process part, which is more appropriate for charter discussions after
>the BoF, and less useful at the BoF itself.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
> >Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:31:14 +0100
> >To: "Woundy, Richard" <[e-mail]>om>,
> >"COURCOUBETIS, Costas" <[e-mail]>gr>, Steven BLAKE
> ><[e-mail]>s.com>, Marcelo BAGNULO BRAUN
> ><[e-mail]>3m.es>, "MONCASTER, Toby" <[e-mail]>om>,
> >"Agarwal, Anil" <[e-mail]>om>, Tom Taylor
> ><[e-mail]>s.com>, Ken Carlberg <[e-mail]>
> >From: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: RE: [re-ECN] Fwd: Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN)
> >BoF inHiroshima?
> >Cc: re-ECN unIETF list <[e-mail]>
>
>[snip]
>
> >I'm off to a wedding for the rest of the day. I'll get back to this
> >first-thing (UK time) Sunday.
>
> >Here's a suggested proposal outline:
> >I'm aiming for something as brief as possible (e.g. 1-2pp).
> >
> >1. Intro
> >   1 para top level motivation: Accountability for Congestion
> >   1 para ambitious, so we have to bite off smallest self-contained chunk
> >   1 para which particular bites to take (using an expt approach like LISP):
> >     a) (INF) recording motivation(s)
> >     b) (EXP) base congestion exposure protocol
> >     c) (STD) process pre-requisites to do (b)
> >     d) (INF) reports on experiments
> >   1 para where other stuff is getting done, e.g. ICCRG
> >
> >2. A little more on each proposed working-group activity
> >2.1 Motivation
> >     Accountability for Congestion
> >     Good fences make good neighbours
> >     - IETF not been good at doing this (NATs, firewalls)
> >     - this is a chance to do it well
> >     Vision
> >     - ECN gives all traffic tiny jitter & loss
> >     - congestion accountability handles other QoS dimension; b/w allocation
> >     - that's QoS sorted :)
> >2.2 Protocol work
> >        prob re-ECN, but open to suggestions
> >        IPv4, IPv6 & TCP as example transport (for now)
> >2.3 IETF Process
> >     Depends on protocol encoding chosen
> >     Current view:
> >       need bit 48 in IPv4 hdr & IPv6 extension hdr + clash with ECN nonce
> >     Planned assignment of required field(s) as experimental
> >     Guidelines on how to confine experimental values (in space & time)
> >2.4 Reports on Experiments
> >     This w-g NOT designed to standardise uses of the protocol
> >     - e.g. policers, new congestion controls, simpler QoS,
> >       inter-domain metering, traffic engineering, DDoS miitigation
> >     But w-g will act as a focus for expts & trials in using its protocol
> >     Will produce reports on role of congestion exposure in trials, issues,
> >     recommendations, re-thinks, etc.
> >     Informs any future move from experimental to stds track
> >2.5 (Optional) Focused work on deployment?
> >     This is more than the minimum work that the w-g needs to bite off
> >     But it's the most important gating factor
> >     Therefore, it could form a focused piece of work in its own right
> >     Survey of middleboxes that will break ECN, re-ECN etc.
> >     Permanent partial deployment (user & net choice to expose congestion)
> >     Incremental deployment outline & incentives
> >
> >3. Proposed BoF Agenda
> >    Motivations (which main motivation?)
> >    Demo (what demo?)
> >    Misconceptions
> >     - congestion (with ECN) != impairment
> >     - uncongested path != good (a symptom of broken transport protocols)
> >     - exposing congestion != operator privacy concerns
> >    Brief protocol outline
> >    Relationship to other w-gs
> >    Community - who's doing what; who's planning what
> >    Questions to put to a vote
> >
> >
> >Bob
>
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research
>
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research