Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?"
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 29 April 2010 14:52 UTC
Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 D1A9C3A6AB2 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 IXpOCM+m-mpE for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E703A6A22 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmkBAGc62UuQ/uCWiWdsb2JhbACdDhUBAQEKCxERBhyka5oEhRAE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,295,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="6461049"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2010 14:14:49 +0000
Received: from [10.49.149.83] (dhcp-10-55-85-106.cisco.com [10.55.85.106]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3TEpmru016853; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:51:49 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100429142130.GH14169@verdi>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:51:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35E06844-A858-4F87-B2C0-FEA73F73FF91@cisco.com>
References: <EE00404438E9444D90AEA84210DC4067079B3B@pacdcexcmb05.cable.comcast.com> <20100429142130.GH14169@verdi>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>, re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?"
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 14:52:05 -0000
gee whiz. If you want to back off like there's no tomorrow, do CalTech FAST in TCP. It does that... Yes, it could use an ECN/PCN trigger to trigger it. On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:21 PM, John Leslie wrote: > Woundy, Richard <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> wrote: >> [John Leslie wrote:] >> >>> I'd like to point to the ALTO WG, trying to develop a scavenger- >>> class service. They want to back off especially quickly if there >>> turns out to be congestion. >> >> Do you mean LEDBAT instead of ALTO? > > Actually, I was thinking both, but LEDBAT slipped my mind. > > You are correct that LEDBAT is charged with developing the > scavenger-class service. > > -- > John Leslie <john@jlc.net> > _______________________________________________ > re-ECN mailing list > re-ECN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
- Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?" Woundy, Richard
- Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?" John Leslie
- Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?" Fred Baker