I am a Ph.D. student whose work is basically about bringing an ABR-like
mechanism to the Internet. I identified some data to be transmitted to end
nodes and designed a protocol to carry them (draft-welzl-ptp-03.txt).
Please take a look at http://www.tk.uni-linz.ac.at/~michael/ptp/ to
see the current state of my work; the specification encompasses the
definition of Content Types (the type of data to be transmitted).
However, I am convinced that a more generic approach (like IntServ / RSVP)
would be better:
- Various Content Types could be used, showing different properties - like
"does the calculation infer per-flow state in routers?". This is not
necessarily restricted to bandwidth calculations; for instance, a link's
MTU could also be transmitted to provide more efficient Path MTU
Discovery.
Once Content Types are identified, it is necessary to discuss
what should be simulated and/or tested.
- Partly depending on the data to be transmitted, it would make sense not
only to define a new protocol but also to define extensions to other
protocols such as RSVP and RTCP.
Actually, the name "ABR to the Internet" is not quite precise; in fact,
it's more like "ABR Explicit Rate Feedback related mechanisms for
the Internet".
In any case, it all needs IETF standardization because it will never
really work without router support. Therefore, I believe parties working
in related areas should request permission to hold a BOF session. I
would personally do so, but I might not be able to attend the next
two IETF meetings due to our departments current financial situation.
I could do it at the London meeting next summer, though. That also
gives us some time to refine the concept.
Be it for a BOF or not, I would really like to get some cooperation
and discussion going. I set up the page at
http://www.tk.uni-linz.ac.at/~michael/ptp/
in support of this mail. If you want to participate, please join
the list (details at the site).
Kind regards,
Michael Welzl
PS: Feel free to forward this to anybody you think might be interested.
Also, if you know the e-mail address of Tim Mangan
( http://www.frforum.com/3000/tim.html ), please forward this to him;
tmangan(_at_)softwarewow(_dot_)com doesn't seem to work - he originally had the
idea of forming a Working Group. David Lapsley should also be interested,
but lapsley(_at_)ee(_dot_)mu(_dot_)oz(_dot_)au doesn't work either.