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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Don,

At 07:42 07/09/2009, Don Bowman wrote:
>In the experiments (or focused work on deployment?) would suggest some
>experimentation on interaction between WG and e.g. LEDBAT. Also for
>experimentation the interaction between re-ecn and dynamic
>bandwidth+spectrum allocation access such as wimax.
>Also interaction of re-ecn w/ tunnels where there maybe congestion
>signalled within the tunnel but not without, or vice versa.

I've included all these merely as examples of what might be done - no 
need to commit to any at this stage.


>In the motivation, suggest expanding on why accountability for
>congestion is better for the end user.

Done - pls check it's OK


>I think the draft structure is fine.

I've end up including all the elements, but changing the order completely.


Bob


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 2009-09-07 1:35 AM
> > To: Woundy, Richard; COURCOUBETIS, Costas; Steven BLAKE; Marcelo
> > BAGNULO BRAUN; MONCASTER, Toby; Agarwal, Anil; Tom Taylor; Ken
> > Carlberg; Leslie Daigle; Don Bowman
> > Cc: re-ECN unIETF list
> > Subject: Fwd: RE: [re-ECN] 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

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research