IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 27 April 2010 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.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 ABD3728C2B3 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.384, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Msvc65UJS-G1 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C822928C22C for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 9576133C26; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:16:01 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20100427151601.GF16203@verdi>
References: <20100401165723.GA1375@verdi> <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363F60@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <20100406192914.GG11835@verdi> <4BBBF64C.2020101@thinkingcat.com> <6036E869-9710-4F7B-BB30-5A70C7250D36@nokia.com> <20100413184853.GA76668@verdi> <4BD6F2DD.3040202@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BD6F2DD.3040202@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: "re-ecn@ietf.org" <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:24:24 -0000

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there a list of service providers that have stated that they wish to 
> deploy CONEX technology?

   I am not aware of such a list, although the ISP I own (JLC.net) should
certainly be included.

   In fairness, ConEx is very much a moving target right now, so I'd
hesitate to push any of the ISPs I talk with to plan adoption of it.

> Similarly is there a list of service providers that have stated that 
> they do not wish to deploy CONEX technology?

   I don't know... this has the same moving-target issue...

   In fairness, I don't think it matters much whether any individual
ISP deploys it. It is about visibility of congestion information, not
about what anyone might do with it. For myself, I always want to stare
at data for a while before attempting to automate anything.

> Do we know which members of the list that wish to deploy the technology 
> need to deploy it over an IP network and which need to deploy it over an 
> MPLS enabled network?

   Good question!

   My personal view is that ConEx makes absolutely no difference except
at IP-layer forwarding points; so I can't imagine why I'd want to view
it (least of all change it) at MPLS layer.

   (I'm only partly familiar with how ECN is carried through MPLS layer
in the EXP field; but I can't think of anything useful to do about it
until the return to IP-layer forwarding.)

> Thanks

   My pleasure...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email