IETF Logo Mail Archive

[re-ECN] Two questions about CONEX

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Sat, 08 May 2010 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 AE8EB3A68C8 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 23:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 cOAEuuGlP7hW for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 23:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CB33A6836 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 May 2010 23:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtEGACOg5EtAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACeGGsGo1qBZgsBlyuCWoI7BA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,352,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="109170540"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2010 06:24:29 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o486OSVf007955 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 May 2010 06:24:29 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o486OR603830; Sat, 8 May 2010 07:24:27 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4BE5039A.5040003@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 07:24:26 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "re-ecn@ietf.org" <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [re-ECN] Two questions about CONEX
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Sat, 08 May 2010 06:24:44 -0000

As I was reading the recent email on CONEX I got the impression that a 
lot of the interest in CONEX is to instrument the network so that 
operators can identify the root causes of congestion and understand the 
impact on the network in more detail.

  I also get the impression that at least some of the operators are 
looking for a relatively long time constant in the feedback loop.

That causes me to wonder where CONEX fits in relative to IPFIX which is 
a mechanism that is designed to monitor the flows in a network and 
report this information to the network operator.

As I noted in a earlier thread, I am also interested in understanding 
why the host needs to use the data packets themselves to indicate the 
expected congestion state to the network rather than using a fate 
sharing OAM mechanism?

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email