[re-ECN] ConEx and MPLS (WAS RE: re-ECN Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18)

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Thu, 29 April 2010 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 603D328C211 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.285
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.685, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6A6wR-rex-Oq for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426EE28C240 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7c85ae000005565-d8-4bd9448eab75
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 33.D3.21861.E8449DB4; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:34:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.86) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:34:06 +0200
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.58]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:34:05 +0200
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: "re-ecn@ietf.org" <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:34:04 +0200
Thread-Topic: ConEx and MPLS (WAS RE: re-ECN Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18)
Thread-Index: AcrndGyWD/QtPHSeQaeob+UBsCSy/gAAPugQ
Message-ID: <548FC4B9D57A4043AAFFE888A39429031D034D1D29@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <mailman.4804.1272529063.4756.re-ecn@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4804.1272529063.4756.re-ecn@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [re-ECN] ConEx and MPLS (WAS RE: re-ECN Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18)
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: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:38:27 -0000

Hi

I am too a bit curious about this as I belive that this is probably an important matter. 
MPLS was (briefly) discussed on the list earlier
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn/current/msg00580.html
As I understand it MPLS is out of scope because there is some pressure to prove that it is useful before attempts are made to adapt other protocols (like MPLS) to work with ConEx.

/Ingemar
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:17:18 +0100
> From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
> To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
> Cc: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>,
> 	re-ecn@ietf.org
> Message-ID: <4BD9408E.7090201@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> 
> >     (I also note that Stewart asked about MPLS forwarding: that's a 
> > quite separate question which may deserve more of an answer than I 
> > have already given...)
> Let me explain why I keep asking about MPLS.
> 
> The stated purpose of CONEX is to provide visibility of 
> congestion state within the network.
> 
> A very large fraction of provider networks use MPLS as their 
> primary forwarding mechanism.
> 
> In those networks there will only be visibility of the 
> congestion state at the network ingress and egress unless an 
> MPLS solution is designed.
> 
> If the intent is to design a mechanism that works under the 
> assumption that congestion state will normally only be 
> visible at network boundaries, then that should be in the 
> charter. If the intent is not to make that assumtion, then we 
> should have a very high degree of confidence that we can find 
> a viable MPLS solution.
> 
> Bob's answer to MPLS in Anaheim was to take it out of scope, 
> but that does not address  the central of whether the 
> technology is viable for deployment without MPLS support.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> 
> 
> End of re-ECN Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18
> **************************************
>