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

["Don Bowman" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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

I think the draft structure is fine.

> -----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