Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:59:38PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:


>    Our principal intent is to have a forwarding-layer mechanism to
> distinguish flows that intend to operate despite congestion from those
> that intend to avoid congestion. Clearly routers forwarding onto
> uncongested links do not need to distinguish these, while routers
> that know they're forwarding onto a congested path might have reason
> to treat them differently (though we don't yet know how), and
> customer-facing routers might wish to enforce limits on the amount
> of congestion-expected traffic.
> 
>    Generally, I don't believe we're at the point where it makes sense
> to describe how routers would use the information -- so I have no
> intent to speak for the list-members on this: but I do believe Ron
> is entitled to some indication where we're coming from.
> 
>    We're talking about a mechanism to have a uniform view of path
> congestion along a forwarding path, not about any particular method
> of dealing with the congestion. We believe such information can
> inform better congestion-control mechanisms extending past the
> foreseeable future.

	ok, then I am confused by your POV.  are we talking about a
	binary switch (congested/notcongested) or are we talking about
	preference/priority - with a range of values?  if the former,
	then its not really applicable to the flow, end/end, since the
	"inspecting forwarder" may in fact be the cause of the congestion.
	if its a range, then how is this different than QOS?

--bill

> 
> --
> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn