m: Bob Briscoe [mailto:bob.bris...@bt.com]
> Sent: den 23 januari 2014 15:51
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: ruediger.g...@telekom.de; ts...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2
> or tunnel protocols?
>
> Ingemar,
ts...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2
> or tunnel protocols?
>
> 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 hav
-Original Message-
> > > From: ruediger.g...@telekom.de [mailto:ruediger.g...@telekom.de]
> > > Sent: den 21 januari 2014 08:38
> > > To: bob.bris...@bt.com
> > > Cc: ts...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adop
.g...@telekom.de [mailto:ruediger.g...@telekom.de]
> Sent: den 21 januari 2014 08:38
> To: bob.bris...@bt.com
> Cc: ts...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2
> or tunnel protocols?
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I support
t: den 21 januari 2014 08:38
> To: bob.bris...@bt.com
> Cc: ts...@ietf.org; aqm@ietf.org
> 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 th
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 experti
Piers,
OK. Text altered (even tho some of the gains are much less sensitive
to marking scheme, the point is of course generally true).
Bob
At 13:26 07/11/2013, Piers O'Hanlon wrote:
Bob,
I was thinking that it would be good to add the following clarifications:
Given a suitable marking sch
Bob,
I was thinking that it would be good to add the following clarifications:
Given a suitable marking scheme ECN provides for the removal of nearly all
congestion loss and it reduces delays for two main reasons:
i) It avoids the delay when recovering from congestion losses, which
particula
I do support this work going forward. I do understand Joe's position/desire and
while it would be preferable to have a comprehensive document, I think
draft-briscoe is useful by itself. FYI, Joe's draft can be found here
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-00
Thanks
Suresh
Piers,
I tried to state exactly how ECN can benefit (2nd para of intro
below), rather than make overblown claims. You seem to be saying I
didn't succeed? I can't see how to do any better. Suggestions?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
ECN
agree with these comments
best wishes
phil
From: tsvwg-boun...@ietf.org [tsvwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Scheffenegger, Richard [r...@netapp.com]
Sent: 05 November 2013 00:48
To: Matt Mathis; Briscoe,RJ,Bob,TUB8 R
Cc: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guideli...@
Hi Bob,
I took a brief look at the draft and it's clearly useful work.
One thing that could do with clarification in the Introduction is that ECN - by
itself - doesn't necessarily lead to low loss and delay - it should be made
clear that it reflects the marking approach of the underlying scheme
Hi,
As earlier indicated, I'd like to see this document being adopted as a tsvwg
work item.
I'd be happy to help with reviewing.
Best regards,
Dirk
> -Original Message-
> From: tsvwg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Piers O'Hanlon
> Sent: Dienstag, 5.
13 matches
Mail list logo
