Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter
<toby.moncaster@bt.com> Wed, 07 October 2009 13:15 UTC
Return-Path: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id A127F3A6868 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2009 06:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_91=0.6,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwNdveY7MmSp for
<re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 06:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1330A3A6A93 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2009 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.61]) by
smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:16:23 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA4750.4D7B75C9"
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:15:54 +0100
Message-ID: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D6464C8@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC063638DF@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter
Thread-Index: AcpA736KTLD8N0JGQcGbeyeZHIURpwGTTAKAAASr3CA=
References: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D418211@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
<4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC063638DF@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
To: <philip.eardley@bt.com>, <re-ecn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2009 13:16:23.0426 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5E0BAE20:01CA4750]
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>,
<mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>,
<mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:15:16 -0000
Thanks for that... One thing I was trying to avoid is too much concentration on ECN. Whilst re-ECN is the current candidate proposal for this others may well emerge (see thread from Matt Mathis for instance). At this stage therefore I would quite like to qualify any mentions of ECN (eg "for instance it might be based on ECN because...". Also qualify any limitations (eg initially this will concentrate on TCP). I think there is still a little room for improvement but this is starting to feel like a realistic charter to me... I personally like the idea of having some formal work on deployment considerations, but it would be important to scope it very tightly so it didn't become open ended. Politically it might be nice to reference the IAB work on this area... Toby From: Eardley,PL,Philip,DEE1 R Sent: 07 October 2009 12:48 To: Moncaster,T,Toby,DEE1 R; re-ecn@ietf.org Subject: RE: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter I worked on this a bit - here's a revised suggestion. - think should mention v4 & v6 in scope & TCP mod needed - tried to spell out the work list more fully (don't think the actual docs needs identifying yet) - personally I don't think a requirements doc should be done, better is a problem statement, which covers the scope of the problem we're solving including any key assumptions. - I'm not sure about deployment considerations and intermediate steps without ECN routers & without congestion exposure at the end hosts. Interesting & important, but not sure if this is biting off too much? - brought in a few words from bob's doc, problem statement i-d etc - did a bit of reordering and re-wording Best wishes, phil Congestion Exposure is a proposed new IETF activity to enable congestion to be exposed within the network layer of the Internet. In particular it will expose both the congestion-so-far and the expected rest-of-path congestion in the IP header of each packet. Congestion exposure brings with it a number of potential uses and benefits, as discussed briefly below. The internet is all about sharing capacity between multiple users, in particular where the total bandwidth demand exceeds a link's capacity. This leads to congestion, which is today managed by a combination of the (voluntary) TCP algorithm and DPI boxes in ISP networks. It is increasingly recognised that in today's internet this leads to issues from technical, business and regulatory viewpoints [ref problem statement, p2pi workshop]. At heart the problem is that the internet lacks a system for accountability for causing congestion - accountability for end users to networks, networks to networks, and networks to end users. The key new metric proposed is that packets carry information about the rest-of-path congestion, so any node can see the congestion it causes others by sending or forwarding traffic. This supplements the existing information from ECN about the congestion-so-far, so any node can see the congestion that has already been caused by the traffic it gets. Many mechanisms can be built on top of exposed congestion information. Those suggested include: congestion policing at network ingresses, inter-domain SLAs, end-to-end QoS, bandwidth sharing among users, traffic engineering. The WG will encourage experiments on such mechanisms, but it will not define them. The main proposed item of work is to define the basic protocol that exposes the expected rest-of-path congestion in the IP header - both v4 & v6 will be considered. The defined protocol should work with minimal changes to the existing network, in particular it should work with unmodified routers; the base assumption is that ECN is enabled, although an intermediate scenario with non-ECN routers should also be considered. Also required is a change to the transport protocol to feedback congestion information from the receiver to sender - only TCP will be considered. Further, the WG will consider an intermediate step with a proxy mechanism in the network acting on behalf of unmodified end hosts <is this widening the scope too much??> A strong candidate for this protocol is re-ECN [ref], as significant research work has already been done and several implementations exist. But the WG is expected to redesign and thoroughly test this alongside any alternative proposed. Congestion Exposure builds on ECN and complements other work at the IETF and IRTF. LEDBAT & ICCRG are looking at new approaches to controlling bulk data transfer rates; congestion exposure would provide better information so that they could work more effectively. The proposed work items are: * Motivations for congestion exposure - the problems it could address * A protocol for congestion exposure. * Threat analysis * Guidelines for using the congestion exposure protocol (metric?); it will be updated as a result of experience from the experiments * Reports of the results of experiments on uses of the congestion exposure protocol * Deployment considerations <widens scope too much??> The initial goal is that all the output of the working group will be informational or experimental. However, if when the documents are ready the technology seems mature enough, the WG will consider if it is appropriate to ask the IESG to advance the document as a Proposed Standard. -----Original Message----- From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of toby.moncaster@bt.com Sent: 29 September 2009 11:28 To: re-ecn@ietf.org Subject: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter And a brief email about the charter: The easiest way to converge to a draft charter is to try and lift text from one or more of: the BoF proposal Bob submitted; the briefer proposal I and others came up with; the draft problem statement. We then need to come up with a realistic list of work items taking into account Lars's comments regarding the level of detail required. Here is my initial attempt at something just to get things going. Congestion Exposure The Congestion Exposure Working Group develops mechanisms to enable congestion to be exposed within the network layer of the Internet. The group will consider mechanisms that require modification of the end-hosts as well as proxy mechanisms that allow network operators to do this on behalf of the end-hosts. The initial output of this group is expected to be informational or experimental. Other work at the IETF [LEDBAT, ALTO] and IRTF [ICCRG] is looking at new approaches to controlling bulk data transfer rates. But these new approaches will only work with the cooperation of the operators. What is lacking is a mechanism to build trust between operators and end-users and between different tiers of operators. In short the Internet lacks a system for accountability. The congestion exposure protocols developed by this group will enable operators to monitor traffic according to the actual impact it is having on other users. This will in turn allow the growth of transports that seek to reduce their congestion impact. This Congestion exposure group focuses on exposing the congestion information that end systems use to determine their transmission. Openly propagating congestion information can provide the foundations for trust and accountability throughout the network. Specifically, the protocols to be considered by this group will expose both the congestion thus far and the expected rest-of-path congestion in the IP header of each packet. This ensures that nodes downstream of the source can see the impact that will be caused by any packet they forward. Currently a protocol called re-ECN (re-inserted explicit congestion notification) has been proposed to do this. Re-ECN is the strongest candidate for adoption, but of course the working group is expected to redesign and thoroughly test this alongside any alternative if one surfaces. The WG will publish a protocol which enables network operators to count the volume of congestion for any chosen aggregate of traffic, whether per customer, per peer, or any other aggregate. The defined protocol should work with minimal changes to the existing network, in particular it should work with unmodified routers, but in the long run it is envisaged these small changes will make a big impact to how the limited resources of the network are shared. The working group will NOT mandate how exposed congestion should be used. It will confine itself to the focused task of defining the protocol for exposing congestion. However, it will strongly encourage experiments into how this information can be used and will ultimately produce guidance on the dos and don'ts of using this information. The proposed work items for this group are: 1) An informational document giving the motivations for congestion transparency and specifying the requirements for any protocol 2) An experimental protocol for congestion transparency. This is likely to be based upon the proposed re-ECN protocol as significant research work has already been done to understand and test this protocol and several implementations already exist. 3) One or more informational documents reporting the results of experiments on applications of the congestion transparency protocol. Specifically these experiments will look at ways to ensure honest disclosure of congestion information and means to ration congestion on a per-user basis. The initial goal is that all the output of the working group will be informational or experimental, but once the experiments have been completed then they will be used to determine if this approach should be standardised within the IETF.
- [re-ECN] BoF draft charter toby.moncaster
- Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter Michael Menth
- Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter philip.eardley
- Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter toby.moncaster
- Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter philip.eardley
- Re: [re-ECN] BoF draft charter toby.moncaster