Ingemar,
1) Thx for the pointer. We should add this as
another example where a lower layer marks the IP
header (the example we already have is the L3 switch in the Ethernet world).
2) It doesn't talk about propagation of ECN
markings during encap & decap, which is one of
the things ecn-encap-guidelines aims to give
guidelines on. Do you think a doc like the draft
we've done would be useful to help 3GPP in this
respect? Do you think a formal liaison would be useful to point it out?
3) 3GPP TS 36.300 is ambiguous whether ECN
marking is applied to all packets to "indicate
congestion", or whether it is applied with a
frequency or probability that depends on an AQM
(it doesn't mention AQM, altho obviously it
refers to RFC3168 that is based on AQM). Do you
know whether it was meant to imply use of AQM?
[Ruediger, thx for the supportive words too]
Bob
At 20:29 21/01/2014, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
Hi
Please note that ECN over LTE radio access is
already standardized in 3GPP TS 36.300 (see 11.6
in http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/36_series/36.300/36300-c00.zip )
/Ingemar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: den 21 januari 2014 08:38
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2
> or tunnel protocols?
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, BT
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
