Hi Bob, I support the issue being picked up by IETF. What can be done within the bounds of IETF responsibility should be done. If ECN is seeing deployment, especially ECN support for IP over VLAN over IP/MPLS may be of interest. Further, ECN over LTE radio Access may be relevant (but my expertise is too limited to judge details).
Regards, Ruediger -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Bob Briscoe Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2013 23:04 An: tsvwg IETF list; AQM IETF list Cc: [email protected] Betreff: [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols? Folks, Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of interest. Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines> Abstract The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. Then the IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the transport layer (L4). Following these guidelines should assure interworking between new lower layer congestion notification mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies. [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case] Bob Briscoe, also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
