Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2
João Taveira Araújo <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk> Fri, 06 November 2009 11:25 UTC
Return-Path: <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
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 0D7573A698E for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:25:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-5.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599,
MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 7Zz1apVmKPxn for
<re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk (dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk [128.40.42.12]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9F83A67A6 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>;
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:25:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.30.243.56] (w148167.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [121.1.148.167])
(authenticated bits=0) by dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
nA6BP8G1021701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
verify=NO); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:25:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4AF40793.9000909@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:25:07 +0000
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Taveira_Ara=FAjo?= <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
Organization: UCL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
References: <4AF26B76.7090308@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF26B76.7090308@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner-Information: Please contact mailhelp@ee.ucl.ac.uk for
more information
X-MailScanner-ID: nA6BP8G1021701
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner-From: j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:25:04 -0000
Hi, Leslie Daigle wrote: > Viability Issue #2 > > The expectation is that congestion exposure information will be > carried in IP packet headers. Is there really enough room to do that > effectively (in IPv4)? There is also the question of whether the hop-by-hop IPv6 extension header is good enough. It has the space, but there are limits to what you can do in practice (encapsulation etc). Might be worth discussing. Joao. > > > For discussion: > This assumes tight timing -- that feedback is received and acted upon > such that subsequent flows will experience the same or similar network > state. What are the implications (or likelihood) of different paths? > Or, are there other network state changes that will (could) change in > that timeframe (now or in future developments). > > Leslie. >
- [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 Leslie Daigle
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 toby.moncaster
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 João Taveira Araújo
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 HeinerHummel
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 toby.moncaster
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 HeinerHummel
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 HeinerHummel
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 Tom Taylor
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 John Leslie
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 HeinerHummel
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 Woundy, Richard
- Re: [re-ECN] VIability issue #2 toby.moncaster