Hi Pekka
Regarding your following remark:
However, to be clear, I have no objection to using the ECN field(s) if
that does not hinder the current use (or lack thereof) of ECN. What I
specifically don't want is to define new fields for PCN, especially
extension headers or IP options. I should
Pekka,
[logical components being:] encoding and transport along forward
path from marker to egress, metering of congestion information at
the egress, and transport of congestion information back to the
controlling ingress.
I'd like to see it explicitly stated that transporting
Karagiannis
Cc: Pekka Savola; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and
Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
I assume that you also have no objection on using
On 2007-2-20, at 11:51, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the
packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that
it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the
mutually trusting network components would
On 2007-02-20 15:31, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
I assume that you also have no objection on using the DSCP fields for
this purpose.
actually, I do, at least in some ways that they might be used. The AF
service (RFC 2597) is specifically
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[logical components being:] encoding and transport along forward
path from marker to egress, metering of congestion information at
the egress, and transport of congestion information back to the
controlling ingress.
I'd like to see it explicitly
On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the
packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that
it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the
mutually trusting network components would
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
I assume that you also have no objection on using the DSCP fields for
this purpose.
actually, I do, at least in some ways that they might be used. The AF
service (RFC 2597) is specifically designed to do as you say; EF
isn't.
