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

[<[e-mail]>]

All, 

I've just talked to Bob whose fears about getting into connectivity
problems have unfortunately proved very much founded. He's now hoping to
get back to the list around 19:00 UTC.  

Arnaud  

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Bob Briscoe
Sent: 07 September 2009 11:19
To: Woundy, Richard; COURCOUBETIS, Costas; Steven BLAKE; Marcelo BAGNULO
BRAUN; Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R; Agarwal, Anil; Tom Taylor; Ken Carlberg;
Leslie Daigle; BOWMAN Don
Cc: re-ECN unIETF list
Subject: [re-ECN] Fwd: Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF in
Hiroshima?

Folks,

Attached is my attempt so far. I started again - I'm happy with it so
far, but it needs the specifics added at the end, where indicated.

I'm sending in case I don't get good connectivity while travelling. 
Once I'm done, I'll send a complete copy. But this gives something for
you to push back on or for you to propose alternative text.

Apologies for sending an attachment (in a hurry).


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