Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement- authors wanted

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

Going back to you posting in this thread a few days ago...

The last sentence said, "...implicit[ly] controls a fair capacity sharing"

Certainly, I wear out my keyboard telling people 
that flow rate equality shouldn't be called 
fairness at all. But we need to avoid implying we 
have the one and only definition of fair capacity sharing in its place.

"...provides a metric that can be used to share 
capacity under a range of fairness policies 
likely to be needed in production networks."



Bob

At 12:27 24/09/2009, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>Hi Toby,
>
>I've tried to fill section 5.3 (see below). I've moved some points form 4.
>(Requirements for a Solution) into this section. So I'm not sure if 4. is
>still an own section. Might be enough to include on paragraph into the
>introduction.
>I hope this input helps somehow as a starting point for 5.3 or if this is not
>what was meant to be there it may be included in some other part on the
>document.
>
>Mirja
>
>
>-----------------------------------------
>5.3.  Re-feedback as a potential solution
>
>To eliminate the asymmetry of information between end-points and network
>components it can be supposed to re-insert the congestion feedback signaled
>by the receiver into the Internet. Thereby an approximation about how much
>congestion needs to be expected over the whole path is given. Having this
>information within the network the congestion policing can be enforced before
>other users get discriminated by "heavy users".
>
>Considering the ECN information as the downstream congestion and the
>re-feedbacked congestion information as whole-path congestion, the upstream
>congestion (or rest-path congestion) can easily be achieved by subtracting
>one form the other. That enables network components to be responsive to
>congestion instead just rely on the end-hosts.
>
>The upstream congestion reveals valuable information at ISP borders. On the
>one hand the amount of congestion that will be pushed into a domain can
>become part of an inter-domain agreement. One the other hand the amount of
>the expected upstream congestion might lead to switch to a less congestion
>network-domain (what might boost the competition to provide a more reliable
>network).
>
>Summing up, the exposure of downstream, upstream 
>and the whole-path congestion
>can be achieved by re-insertion of congestion notifications and will
>establish an information symmetry between users and network providers. This
>will open a door for incremental deployment and an evolution to new
>congestion responses which are not bounded anymore to an "universal rate
>adaptable policy" as the information equilibrium implicit controls a fair
>capacity sharing.
>
>
>On Thursday 24 September 2009 10:04:03 [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the useful feedback. Clearly this document is still in its
> > very early stages. I will try and produce a new version by end of the
> > week  which will hopefully address some of your comments.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am still keen to get volunteers willing to contribute chunks
> > of text for any of the sections.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Menth [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 23 September 2009 22:41
> > > To: Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement- authors
> > > wanted
> > >
> > > Hi Toby,
> > >
> > > I read the whole document and still it is unclear in many parts. I
> > > marked them in the attached doc-file. I hope this helps to improve its
> > > clarity.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >     Michael
> > >
> > > [e-mail] schrieb:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > As promised here is a new draft of the problem statement with a bit
> > >
> > > more meat on the bones. There is still an awful lot of work to be done
> > > on this and not too much time to do it. Our absolute deadline to get
> > > something in is October 19th - only just over 3 weeks away...
> > >
> > > > As before I would welcome any contributions of text or general
> > >
> > > comments. When I have a bit more time I will do proper xml2rfc author
> > > entries for everyone that has contributed... For political reasons I
> > > want it to be clear that this is a document that has been worked on
> > > from people across the whole range of the IETF community.
> > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________________________________
> > > > Toby Moncaster, Senior Researcher, Network Infrastructure Practise
> > > > B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  [phone]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > -
> > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > re-ECN mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
> > > University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-
> > > 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
> > > phone: [phone] (new), fax: [phone]
> > > mailto:[e-mail]
> > > http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > re-ECN mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
>Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
>University of Stuttgart, Germany
>Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart
>
>web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
>email: [e-mail]
>tel: [phone]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design