1 / 3

Byte and Packet Congestion Notification draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt

Byte and Packet Congestion Notification draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt. Bob Briscoe , BT IETF-78 tsvwg Jul 2010 This work is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project supported by the European Community www.trilogy-project.org. Byte and Packet Congestion Notification.

megan
Download Presentation

Byte and Packet Congestion Notification draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Byte and Packet Congestion Notificationdraft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt Bob Briscoe, BTIETF-78 tsvwg Jul 2010 This work is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project supported by the European Community www.trilogy-project.org

  2. Byte and Packet Congestion Notification • updated wg draft: draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt 12 Jul 2010 • intended status: informational • updates: 2309 (if approved) • immediate intent: WG review then WG last call • w-gs & r-gs affected: TSVWG, PCN, DCCP, ICCRG • milestone: Feb 2010 (needs slipping) reminder (exec summary) • question: in any AQM (e.g. RED drop, RED ECN, PCN) should we allow for packet-size when network writes or when transport reads a loss or mark? • propose AQM SHOULD NOT give smaller packets preferential treatment • adjust for byte-size of packets when transport reads NOT when network writes status • had reached WG consensus on technical message • reorganised and focused text on message, as requested by w-g (due to new co-author Jukka Manner) • message no different, just readable. next steps • WG review: Is it clearer now? • If so, one more rev to pick up review comments, then WG last call?

  3. Byte and Packet Congestion Notificationdraft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-02.txt Q&A

More Related