Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Pls respond: Do we have a Congestion Exposure community?

From: "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:03:02 +0200

Hi,

I personally am interested in this. I think re-ECN is an interesting endeavor and has significant potential. Regarding the experiments you mentioned in an earlier Email, do you have something in particular mind how these might look like?

Best,

	Rolf

>Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:33:36 +0100
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Pls respond: Do we have a Congestion Exposure community?
>
>Folks,
>
>I'd like to try to arrange a Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF in Nov at 
>the Hiroshima IETF. If so, we have to notify the area directors v soon 
>- by 24:00 UTC Mon 7 Sep 09. #1 gating function for Area
>Directors: activity on an ietf list.
>
>Therefore, pls respond preferably *on this list* if you're interested 
>in being involved, no matter how insignificantly, e.g.
>
>- you want congestion visibility for other stuff you're doing
>   (but don't intend to work on it itself)
>- reviewing docs,
>- alternative way to achieve congestion exposure
>- participate in mailing list discussion,
>- co-authoring docs
>- design ways to do incremental deployment
>- using code for other stuff you're doing
>- thinking up new uses for the protocol
>- breaking it
>- analysing benefits/costs
>- implement protocol
>- implement a demo
>- running or participating in trials
>- standing on the sidelines booing or clapping
>- whatever
>
>Perceived problem:
>Most people want to work on something finite like a new cool 
>non-TCP-friendly congestion control. Less people want to go into an 
>pseudo-infinite loop fixing IP to allow other cool stuff to happen.
>If you want something like re-ECN to be there, but don't have the 
>bandwidth to work on it, that's cool too - please say this - it's still 
>palpable support. And you will be likely to have review comments 
>related to how you want to use it.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Bob
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:29:01 +0100

Rolf,

At 19:03 04/09/2009, Rolf Winter wrote:
>I personally am interested in this. I think re-ECN is an interesting 
>endeavor and has significant potential.

Thanks

>Regarding the experiments you mentioned in an earlier Email, do you 
>have something in particular mind how these might look like?

Nope - that's up to you, of course. Do you have something in mind?

Altho I'm open, here's some thoughts:

1/ I know the Internet2 guys (at least the CEO) want to see if 
deploying re-ECN will help a problem they have. They have users who 
want to transfer large chunks of scientific data. Internet2 prevents 
them using just any transport protocol in case they blow other users 
out of the water. They have set up a competition between 
connectionless and connection-oriented. In the latter case users can 
request a nailed up pipe between A & B for their experiment. In the 
former case they have to negotiate all the blocks and throttles that 
may have been deployed between A & B.

The idea is to see whether a generic congestion policing function 
built on re-ECN would solve this dilemma.

2/ We have folks in BT who we're discussing the possibility of using 
congestion in customer contracts. One idea is to trial it in the 
market - but there's a lot of technology trials to go through first.

3/ I'd like to see trials on novel congestion control algos, using 
congestion policing as a permit to allow them not to be TCP-friendly.

4/ other...

Bob