ubject: RE: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)
Does anyone have data?
I'm not sure that it helps people to say there is research in evaluating the
potential for ECN to save CPU cycles. I'm
-ecn-benef...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)
On 12/1/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
> Hi
> Sorry to come so late with a comment.
>
f.org; aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit
> Congestion Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC
> (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)
>
> On 12/1/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
>> Hi
>> Sorry to come so la
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)'
(draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Active Queue Management and Packet
Scheduling Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
On 12/1/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
Hi
Sorry to come so late with a comment.
Is it too late to add one more benefit to the draft?
I suspect ECN brings potential and significant savings in CPU cycles and memory usage ,
especially on the "server side" terminating a large number of TCP
