Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question

["McCann Peter-A001034" <[e-mail]>]

John Leslie wrote:
> David Harrington <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> As a vendor, if I supported a re-ecn,
> 
>    Wait a second... what might it mean for a "vendor" to "support"
> ConEx?
> 
>    The first example is an Operating-System vendor. An OS "supports"
> ConEx by putting ConEx markings in IP packets it originates --
> otherwise the markings can't get there. It is likely that an OS
> vendor would automate what ConEx markings based upon congestion
> feedback, within its TCP/IP stack.   
> 
>    The next example is a middlebox vendor. A middlebox might perform
> accounting and/or policing for congestion-expected packet volume. 
> 
>    IMHO, a backbone-router vendor is _not_ an example. Backbone
> routers either do or don't support ECN marking in place of dropping
> packets. (A end-customer-router might well perform middlebox tasks,
> but I prefer to group it with other middleboxes.)   

It would still be desirable to implement the preferential dropping
scheme on congested links in the backbone, no?  Or are you assuming
that with universal deployment of ECN, we would never get the congestion
in the backbone that would necessitate dropping?

-Pete