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 have another channel to
convey this information (e.g., using SNMP, IPFIX, or the like)
might also apply.
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 have been
clearer with my objection.
Right, there are multiple ways to encode and transport congestion
information to and from the egress. The charter has a milestone for
the WG to discuss various options before picking one for the initial
standards-track documents:
Nov 2007 Survey of Encoding and Transport Choices of (Pre-)Congestion
Information within a DiffServ Domain (Informational)
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf