request for comments : Pre-Congestion Notification BOF
"Anna Charny \(acharny\)" <[email protected]> Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:08:17 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tsvwg,gmane.ietf.nsis,gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.sipping,gmane.ietf.ieprep,gmane.ietf.pwe3,gmane.ietf.dccp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0702625DB4@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> |
Dear all, We have submitted a request for Pre-Congestion Notification BOF at the San Diego meeting. The proposed BOF description, agenda, draft charter and the problem statement draft are in the attached message below. We welcome your feedback on any of these documents. Please send your comments to [email protected]. Best Regards, Anna Charny ________________________________ From: Anna Charny (acharny) Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:51 PM To: 'Magnus Westerlund'; 'Lars Eggert' Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected] Subject: Request for Pre-Congestion Notification BOF Hello Lars and Magnus, This message constitutes a formal request for Pre-Congestion Notification BOF at the November IETF meeting in San Diego. The BOF description and its proposed agenda are attached at the end of this message. If this BOF is approved, we would like to request a two-hour slot that avoids scheduling conflicts with the following working groups: tsv, nsis, sip, ieprep, ecrit, pwe3, dccp. We also ask that you CC [email protected] with your decision. Of course we welcome any feedback you might have. Best Regards, Anna Charny PCN BOF Description The Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) BOF will address the problem of how to provide scalable and resilient admission control and strong QoS assurance while using packet marking techniques. Current attempts to deliver QoS using only packet marking (e.g. DiffServ) are limited in the level of QoS assurance that can be provided without substantial over-provisioning. To improve the QoS assurance, PCN will add flow admission control and flow pre-emption. In normal circumstances admission control should protect the QoS of previously admitted flows. In times of heavy congestion (for example caused by route changes due to link or router failure) pre-emption of some flows should preserve the QoS of remaining flows. The overall approach will be based on a the concept of a PCN-Region, within which the functionality is separated between the PCN-Interior Node (PIN) and the PCN-End Node (PEN). The initial scope of the BOF will be the case of a single DiffServ region, which maps to a PCN-Region. PINs mark packet headers when their traffic is above a certain level, as an early warning of incipient congestion ("pre-congestion"); this builds on concepts from RFC 3168 "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification to IP". PENs monitor the markings and that information is used to make flow admission control and pre-emption decisions. The decisions could be made by the PENs or by a centralized system (which is informed of the PCN information). The BOF will address the need and the motivation for PCN work in the context of IETF, provide a brief overview of prior PCN efforts and related work, and review open issues. The BOF will also discuss the scope of work and solicit feedback on the proposed charter. Ultimately, the goal of the BOF is to solicit community feedback on whether the problem is clear and needs to be addressed, and consequently whether the creation of a new PCN WG within the scope of the proposed charter is warranted. The draft charter is available from http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/PCN_draft_charter_v00.txt <http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/PCN_draft_charter_v00.txt> . The problem statement and motivation for the PCN work is discussed in more detail in draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-00, which has been submitted to IETF and is also available at http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-00.txt <http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-00.txt > . Proposed BOF agenda 1. Agenda bashing (5 min) 2. Motivation and Problem Statement presentation (15 min) 3. Discussion of motivation and problem statement (30 min) 4. Overview of prior PCN efforts, related work and open issues (15 min) 5. Overview of the proposed charter (10 min) 6. Discussion/bashing of the proposed charter (20 min) 7. General discussion and poll on the WG creation (25 min)