Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Fri, 07 May 2010 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 6B2C73A6B4F for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.383, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FMKUwNCiR2UR for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5BC3A6957 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS+QsKM8F2AXI5591ch6KNJeK5WoHmMb/@postini.com; Fri, 07 May 2010 08:05:13 PDT
Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Fri, 7 May 2010 08:02:20 -0700
Received: from [172.28.134.61] (172.28.134.61) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Fri, 7 May 2010 11:02:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4BE42B7A.6010506@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:02:18 -0400
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; 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
References: <4BE42A91.2040202@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BE42A91.2040202@juniper.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question
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, 07 May 2010 15:05:26 -0000

Correction to my last message:

"What will those routers do with that information?"

                           Ron

On 5/7/2010 10:58 AM, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Please excuse a simple question from an AD who has not followed your
> work very closely:
> 
> About ten years ago, the IETF sponsored work regarding the Explicit
> Congestion Notification (ECN). In this strategy, a router determines
> that it is about to forward a packet over a link that is running hot,
> but not so hot that it is obliged to discard the packet. So, the router
> marks the packet's ECN bits and forwards the packet over the hot link.
> The endpoints respond appropriately.
> 
> As far as I understand, the difference between the proposed work CONEX
> and ECN is that "The mechanism to be developed by the CONEX WG
> will enable the sender to also relay the congestion information
> back into the IP layer, such that the total level of congestion is
> visible to all IP devices along the path."
> 
> When you say "the IP layer", I assume that you mean "other routers on
> the path between the two endpoints". Do I have this right?
> 
> If I do have this right, who will those routers use this information?
> 
>                                       Ron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>