Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1
Matt Mathis <matt.mathis@gmail.com> Mon, 09 November 2009 01:22 UTC
Return-Path: <matt.mathis@gmail.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 BA8953A69AE for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>;
Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:22:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151,
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 sWH-AB9EAwqq for
<re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f215.google.com (mail-fx0-f215.google.com
[209.85.220.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14283A635F for
<re-ecn@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so824598fxm.29 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>;
Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:23:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=CJIjf2wNDXRo1HHnfuV03pYpB3d4+UHaD0hPcop74H4=;
b=yHFPLS8wKYbxHQXPxEk4lB5JvUnoPwEz0gNss2nqlIbNUtcQBBVT3jeUkLPWgMt9yu
h6ebzNySSa9SADfRgAxHQdjfQeLy93Y4dEcW2OHE89ggH2aH1LfguGDTLUvH9TcDA+9f
HzWC8c2qIQDJYUVgz5aWY+iw/1kHIT2Wzg7sM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
b=kQKiXpELmuhB0faZWzYSagHiR2ZUpRfh3RMdgi9BlVJ8Jbq7iO9w2ut1/tjOfApZbX
RK4+D37vVTjaednExCyBFJWEigLEq0wCmVs0c2odo3CPNsEgnETyC5wnY/dfYQJdwOsy
+1XUOo0IhcJ2bix9clTppHgw6w/mMOcAz7yGw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.151.210 with SMTP id d18mr1214676bkw.203.1257729784968;
Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:23:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4AF26B57.3030601@thinkingcat.com>
References: <4AF26B57.3030601@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:23:04 -0500
Message-ID: <fc0ff13d0911081723g1c43432dudf5e69d954974777@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis@gmail.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:22:44 -0000
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> wrote: > > 2/ Congestion exposure provides mechanisms to declare awareness of > whole-path congestion WITHOUT prescribing behaviours. One little detail: you only get "whole-path" congestion information using full RE-ECN. Loss based RE-feedback is not in general able to reliably instrument upstream congestion. To the extent that we want to use loss based RE-feedback as a stepping stone to get to full RE-ECN, we want to avoid charter and problem statement language that it can't support. Consider "... downstream..." or the less specific "... congestion elsewhere on the path..." As I indicated in a previous message, there are reasons to be suspicious of applications that want to instrument congestion that that the packets have already escaped. Thanks, --MM--
- [re-ECN] Viability issue #1 Leslie Daigle
- Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1 toby.moncaster
- Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1 John Leslie
- Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1 Leslie Daigle
- Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1 Matt Mathis