From nobody Fri Oct 3 12:04:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8931A0378 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPnNq-9vVvui for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0571A033D for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wn1so1060598obc.20 for ; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MA1QamYRnW8NBvdP+4LNiTbkY1Q/LAWVSwdB8AsmwXg=; b=fjBW7kXJesAKxhGIwns1mwmlA2zKca3GuLzE3XHND1BZxzrVVjz7q44ENlXJt3ym0B SjoGHo+3udhGVWZvJAOwxbpRDqVSACpFCgyDcWjrk+qIIBkwjZLex8SiULNMW6+RcBKp yCEPaH5MtMRunT/fSuhyx5tH8T7sJ9ba7SJCsWa5+Z+J65fLBqK7oEy/LdKN/gnvGRUE YnmEwWLqBmKtbgb2it1SCeqgaj8G+zUNHEoG0MJtrsXnuFwBzS3x6tDBsYxRBNxSoC3V tukcojTM5aMUxTeAaASd2pI77rDPPlJE7pSt98lyKgsfQz2ojAAGGermg7zsh77qlrz0 IJ4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.51.71 with SMTP id i7mr7971102oeo.41.1412351163777; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.76 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <542D05B9.1040601@redhat.com> References: <542D05B9.1040601@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:46:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Daniel Borkmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/nr6hB4dJXHoyaGYlmH0v8QSAPKo X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:03:57 -0700 Cc: fwestpha@redhat.com, "aqm@ietf.org" , dclc@irtf.org, bloat Subject: Re: [Dclc] DCTCP in linux net-next X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 15:46:14 -0000 The testing on this DCTCP implementation is documented at: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id= =3De3118e8359bb7c59555aca60c725106e6d78c5ce Very Impressive! The use of classification to run this on the same data plane as other traffic was clever, also... Me being me, I'd wanted to test it against fq_codel, codel and pie (all of which support ECN) instead of RED, test it against competing cc algorithms (what harm could a cubic sender do in an otherwise dctcp environment?), all of which were impossible given the age of the patch prior set. I had no faith in the prior (pre-bql-era) results for DCTCP. I am also interested in what effects, if any, sch_fq had on the hosts vs a vs DCTCP. It looks like the code currently falls back to reno, not cubic, if ecn is not enabled, also... There are several tests in netperf-wrapper that could be easily modified to invoke dctcp instead to very rapidly get that sort of data. (the tests are things like cubic_reno reno_cubic_westwood_lp and the various tcp_square_wave tests, the 50 flow test, etc) Regrettably I'm not in a DC environment, I'm still out here, trying to fix the edge. Hopefully someone(s) else here will re-run their tests in with this modernized version of dctcp.... On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrot= e: > Hi Dave, > > [ also Cc'ing Florian as co-author ] > > On 10/02/2014 05:20 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> I was surprised and delighted to see that DCTCP has now entered the >> linux net-next kernel (which means it will end up in linux 3.18 if it >> pans out)... >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/332259 >> >> Benchmarkers fire up yer engines! The last benchmarks of DCTCP were >> all from the pre-bql era.... > > > Indeed, please do. ;) We did longer term measurements in a data center > environment as attached to the commit message, mostly to provoke incast > collapse. Results were looking quite promising. > >> In similar news, some patches are tightening up BQL. The improvements >> here are measured in >> 10s to 100s of us, and in cpu savings... >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/394810/ > > > Thanks, > Daniel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/make-wifi-fast From nobody Thu Oct 23 08:18:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CE31ABD37 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:18:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ki2zw3H0ssDf for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5734B1A9023 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=763; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414077479; x=1415287079; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=8/Wd7gz474kSzNZ+NaNnylDLjJmRin6QY7UG1JuVBkI=; b=JHOWFQy3lyTXZ2J/lRpDt9LnFBHBduVT4myVTrfROgSaTEEHxPcp8uW/ /OyCOWIPDetEecpUAHmlGDDVZyXSVYEr83R+Rs8fY5kuxDcF8q3z2xY8g jtbI+X3JQHlrENrQ7oMO2ULlr91dgB5mzYw3Qx2UkCSMR6poyLb4WcoZu o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah0FABEbSVStJV2d/2dsb2JhbABcgw6BMI1cyAMWAX2ECYELAYEADxgEIYgzpAOkFgEBAQEBBQEBAQEBAQEBGpQMgR4FkgWCDoFQh3qWLYN4gjSBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,775,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="89709282" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2014 15:17:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9NFHw0q025566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:17:58 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:17:58 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: dclc Thread-Topic: Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP7tSGvqAI4IGI80qY8Q2Q+isV8w== Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A87B90C-F95E-46DD-90BA-B69F108CE8AC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/Cngv4GWX7J0dXyIzubFu-hHGwzM Subject: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:18:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9A87B90C-F95E-46DD-90BA-B69F108CE8AC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii We are scheduled for a meeting at IETF 91 in Honolulu. Looking for = agenda items. --Apple-Mail=_9A87B90C-F95E-46DD-90BA-B69F108CE8AC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFUSRwkbjEdbHIsm0MRAoA9AJ95i2UXMS/3J/6xxYS1W1O6FK7d8gCgulVg S2cO/MoerxiXVA44/xmXoYg= =cBUX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_9A87B90C-F95E-46DD-90BA-B69F108CE8AC-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 01:21:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421CE1A8A1D for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:21:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4iOpQErcrRIz for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7CA91A6FBE for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDM26120; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:21:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from NKGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.43]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:21:38 +0800 From: Weixinpeng To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , dclc Thread-Topic: Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP7tSGvqAI4IGI80qY8Q2Q+isV85xDnofw Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.76.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/-Hen2CumyvHzKtHQfkT4IRj92es Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:21:52 -0000 Hi Fred, It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our work on tu= nnel-based congestion control.=20 The following is a link to the document. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback/= =20 Thanks! -Xinpeng >-----Original Message----- >From: Dclc [mailto:dclc-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) >Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:18 PM >To: dclc >Subject: [Dclc] Agenda topics > >We are scheduled for a meeting at IETF 91 in Honolulu. Looking for agenda >items. From nobody Mon Oct 27 02:09:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9443E1A1BD7 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:09:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVcsG74eBY42 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB6DD1A6FBE for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:09:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,794,1406617200"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="206119556" Received: from hioexcmbx01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.34]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 02:09:09 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx01-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:09:08 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::9047:8c6c:1d6e:4581%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:09:08 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Weixinpeng Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP7tSGvqAI4IGI80qY8Q2Q+isV85xDnofwgACEeYA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:09:07 +0000 Message-ID: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C5C7C11-22D8-40A1-9318-9F031421ECB4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/a228htOdvxq2Pnbg2_AZew1KOvY Cc: "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:09:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6C5C7C11-22D8-40A1-9318-9F031421ECB4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Xinpeng, On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: > It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our work = on tunnel-based congestion control.=20 > The following is a link to the document. > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback= /=20 could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in = datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about = wide area networks? Thanks, Lars= --Apple-Mail=_6C5C7C11-22D8-40A1-9318-9F031421ECB4 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMVzCCBhsw ggUDoAMCAQICAwhPlDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0 YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcx ODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENB MB4XDTEzMTIwNjA3MDk0N1oXDTE0MTIwNzA3MDY0MVowOjEYMBYGA1UEAwwPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAu Y29tMR4wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg9sYXJzQG5ldGFwcC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDS6c3AH5ZSxTExtqA4RCkRMWmh84KVsbd85iNmeq2VHJv2Pc9TXG6aZz7r3Fjp qXV+VtHlHOzZ1ncpMV0ldJMgi8F45/5WpSMEg4sXnYdtheE3drgWeR816PEaydHqSnaMNutAC7Td ykkOFHXIsVg8IblDXhfiVQiZBZd+Wz6BpyMe59gr4Bpveft18uPQIXSxE95EsDTMyd/UDLVB+AkB gHhO0+XxauzCbNUnubyiYYGOzgQ9G8J3Ewgrr/nVR+CrBCYgIsBP3foo0/h1hE7dHyI0Gl341yR7 J0AHDQ0DPIQOQtscFuRlthksCZLCfVSK6Mh6hVCOMEjVJxrgeBU3AgMBAAGjggLVMIIC0TAJBgNV HRMEAjAAMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0O BBYEFHIOXgd2Y3/7a+OqwJ2giDTpYULAMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFFNy7ZKc4NrLAVx8fpY1TvLUuFGC MBoGA1UdEQQTMBGBD2xhcnNAbmV0YXBwLmNvbTCCAUwGA1UdIASCAUMwggE/MIIBOwYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgMwggEqMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRm MIH3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCB6jAnFiBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTADAgEB GoG+VGhpcyBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSB3YXMgaXNzdWVkIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byB0aGUgQ2xhc3MgMSBW YWxpZGF0aW9uIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ0EgcG9saWN5LCByZWxpYW5j ZSBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcHVycG9zZSBpbiBjb21wbGlhbmNlIG9mIHRoZSByZWx5 aW5nIHBhcnR5IG9ibGlnYXRpb25zLjA2BgNVHR8ELzAtMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0 c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1MS1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMS9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0 dHA6Ly9haWEuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczEuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNV HRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggEBAMCLv+Qk QYJxSendSLJPbFKuMkgm1PdAVoqxKAi8HmbirBTPhxh0vzhmZ/rneCHHlqY4p6r81+Se9HsqDsB6 DBQ/IbNgs7FQlCqOvCIwbn7VK+k/0eJAyOjIaUDPoD1ZaA1AkaFjJxvD2ZUZLBNq4AvOuP52j0Dm i0FBC6pbBfnz57wuB++3P4NBTfZABbdazHlxl/2z1RGQNGov3R6zwNZLbxU2o2ftEJ48j4unuHjP islFru3GRp4dbm5JLuHjUdDyXtMw6CdDvlmWQCcAgtEfqbGDp9bSSE9vbXbgf8n6iHoIA96HnTBW BTDERdixe8t0T9AyT4ks9eHFLPL+PbwwggY0MIIEHKADAgECAgEeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMH0x CzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGln aXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMSkwJwYDVQQDEyBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9u IEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw0wNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaFw0xNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJ TDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVk aWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDHCYPMzi3YGrEp pC4Tq5a+ijKDjKaIQZZVR63UbxIP6uq/I0fhCu+cQhoUfE6ERKKnu8zPf1Jwuk0tsvVCk6U9b+0U jM0dLep3ZdE1gblK/1FwYT5Pipsu2yOMluLqwvsuz9/9f1+1PKHG/FaR/wpbfuIqu54qzHDYeqiU fsYzoVflR80DAC7hmJ+SmZnNTWyUGHJbBpA8Q89lGxahNvuryGaC/o2/ceD2uYDX9U8Eg5DpIpGQ dcbQeGarV04WgAUjjXX5r/2dabmtxWMZwhZna//jdiSyrrSMTGKkDiXm6/3/4ebfeZuCYKzN2P8O 2F/Xe2AC/Y7zeEsnR7FOp+uXAgMBAAGjggGtMIIBqTAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MA4GA1UdDwEB /wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUTgvvGqRA W6UXaYcwyjRoQ9BBrvIwZgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEWjBYMCcGCCsGAQUFBzABhhtodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2EwLQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2Nh LmNydDBbBgNVHR8EVDBSMCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zZnNjYS5jcmww J6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDCBgAYDVR0gBHkwdzB1Bgsr BgEEAYG1NwECATBmMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUucGRm MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4ICAQAKgwh9eKssBly4Y4xerhy5I3dNoXHYfYa8PlVLL/qtXnkFgdtY 1o95CfegFJTwqBBmf8pyTUnFsukDFUI22zF5bVHzuJ+GxhnSqN2sD1qetbYwBYK2iyYA5Pg7Er1A +hKMIzEzcduRkIMmCeUTyMyikfbUFvIBivtvkR8ZFAk22BZy+pJfAoedO61HTz4qSfQoCRcLN5A0 t4DkuVhTMXIzuQ8CnykhExD6x4e6ebIbrjZLb7L+ocR0y4YjCl/Pd4MXU91y0vTipgr/O75CDUHD RHCCKBVmz/Rzkc/b970MEeHt5LC3NiWTgBSvrLEuVzBKM586YoRD9Dy3OHQgWI270g+5MYA8GfgI /EPT5G7xPbCDz+zjdH89PeR3U4So4lSXur6H6vp+m9TQXPF3a0LwZrp8MQ+Z77U1uL7TelWO5lAp sbAonrqASfTpaprFVkL4nyGH+NHST2ZJPWIBk81i6Vw0ny0qZW2Niy/QvVNKbb43A43ny076khXO 7cNbBIRdJ/6qQNq9Bqb5C0Q5nEsFcj75oxQRqlKf6TcvGbjxkJh8BYtv9ePsXklAxtm8J7GCUBth HSQgepbkOexhJ0wP8imUkyiPHQ0GvEnd83129fZjoEhdGwXV27ioRKbj/cIq7JRXun0NbeY+UdMY u9jGfIpDLtUUGSgsg2zMGs5R4jGCA28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UE ChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2ln bmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGll bnQgQ0ECAwhPlDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDEwMjcwOTA5MDZaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRL07kWJMt1hlxNC/uSybMG Bmi9kjCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGXMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwhP lDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeggZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENv bSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYD VQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDCE+U MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAIvxqNlb+C2mca7QBtlRoCLxmfA3oWHBWMyU80mVhIlxBWyT3tc0 Q+E6jZOWVu5qWG5e9PI3yPHB90Xp2xPkiMNMuGmvoa9Ox5iwdt43wPKHMcFGrvdmX4MBTfwUDXFT GWlFk+teIHTkn+JySQRt/lTiNSe9lzvsa7y6GyMbANVcFlz2XBr12hIZVzHwMzyrmPZ9r92AvhN3 7WCwLRwYVtVmnhWTMoIwYVxbid2KMe2bcYUebiEX/6eF2Tg/YXWHAkmRdVRQv6NYgLWBKbpxUdZ4 WBdWJW8f+u1s0lHA8l0EH00cmrrp4Mi5tIIIKQhKIyFh6qYEJQ7V1dARiUhyhU4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_6C5C7C11-22D8-40A1-9318-9F031421ECB4-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 08:39:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052CD1A88A3 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czGunGNArEiC for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296C91A88B2 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2233; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414424385; x=1415633985; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/atepeR/XaBNLakxLTLxRpfp4LuzKwRbJ/0Jf+/BHt4=; b=ZKx4MPxNYZ666Aw2YUPy/bFm3ipzoT5+sIysr+AWTFDgEcIQKwFN7qGH YP1m+cARBAKHbY7v0FC6YSR7KPape2O4IZkP1Y3zLjW0oKyxwJWme3fwt ZwBHuPL7gEbRW6xw8erkCmwKGC4ANB8/w5xyueWEnv2SFwR2rzp8L/dMh 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFAGlmTlStJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATNPodLAoEcFgF9hAIBAQEDAXkFCwIBCBguMiUCBA4FDogqCQ3LUgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReRCAeDLYEeBZIHghCBUGiHEoExPIY6jgeDeGyBSIEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,796,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="90704324" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 15:39:44 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RFdiLH007529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:44 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:39:44 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "Eggert, Lars" Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP8fw6kZ+B6LM4U0Om6u85UH2/fw== Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/BWXmVSJq44Tw3Fxtxb8qaaQGI6A Cc: Weixinpeng , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi Xinpeng, >=20 > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our work = on tunnel-based congestion control.=20 >> The following is a link to the document. >> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback= /=20 >=20 > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in = datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about = wide area networks? >=20 > Thanks, > Lars I=92m scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she = can comment here. The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple = data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a = data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned = latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP. Where I=92m scratching my head is figuring out what it=92s actually = trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in = a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as = OpenStack. It doesn=92t seem to make obvious points about that such as = are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced = congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior = header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I=92m = not sure I walked away with =93so do this=94. --Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD4DBQFUTmc8bjEdbHIsm0MRAq/WAJ9wTJJOejor2lDPVq6Ul01vMZqdkQCXSfrg UMNrLpU4b+XLCVa17aRnTg== =cgeU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 08:44:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F861A87DB for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:44:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKuKX96R8_X2 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDDD51AC40D for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from ravage.mac.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.56.44]:51719) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:tm444) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) id 1XimST-0000lQ-jI (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:43:49 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_04A4E9D5-C67B-4B1D-9672-D15EFF503FB5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Toby Moncaster In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:43:51 +0000 Message-Id: References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Sender: "T. Moncaster" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/Hb3TxMSWhMxIL_Btqvyq2yKsBJk Cc: Weixinpeng , "Eggert, Lars" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:44:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_04A4E9D5-C67B-4B1D-9672-D15EFF503FB5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I=92m also contemplating whether it needs an IPR disclosure on this: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2258079B1?cl=3Den Which I was working on at BT a few years ago. Toby On 27 Oct 2014, at 15:39, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >=20 > On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >=20 >> Hi Xinpeng, >>=20 >> On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: >>> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our = work on tunnel-based congestion control.=20 >>> The following is a link to the document. >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback= /=20 >>=20 >> could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in = datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about = wide area networks? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Lars >=20 > I=92m scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she = can comment here. >=20 > The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple = data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a = data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned = latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP. >=20 > Where I=92m scratching my head is figuring out what it=92s actually = trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in = a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as = OpenStack. It doesn=92t seem to make obvious points about that such as = are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced = congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior = header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I=92m = not sure I walked away with =93so do this=94. > _______________________________________________ > Dclc mailing list > Dclc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc --Apple-Mail=_04A4E9D5-C67B-4B1D-9672-D15EFF503FB5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I=92m = also contemplating whether it needs an IPR disclosure on = this:


Which I = was working on at BT a few years = ago.

Toby

On 27 Oct = 2014, at 15:39, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:


On Oct = 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> = wrote:

Hi Xinpeng,

On = 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng <weixinpeng@huawei.com> = wrote:
It will be appreciated if there is a = timeslot for me to show our work on tunnel-based congestion control. =
The following is a link to the document.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congesti= on-feedback/

could you outline how this draft = is related to latency control in datacenters? I read an earlier version = and it seemed to be all about wide area = networks?

Thanks,
Lars

I=92m scratching my = head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she can comment = here.

The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across = multiple data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented = within a data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also = mentioned latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on = 3GPP.

Where I=92m scratching my head is figuring out what it=92s = actually trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be = implemented in a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in = architectures such as OpenStack. It doesn=92t seem to make obvious = points about that such as are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is = marked as having experienced congestion, that information needs to be = reflected in the interior header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite = a bit about IPFIX. I=92m not sure I walked away with =93so do = this=94.
_______________________________________________
Dclc = mailing list
Dclc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/dclc

= --Apple-Mail=_04A4E9D5-C67B-4B1D-9672-D15EFF503FB5-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 08:49:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956671A88DD for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:49:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2NO55QuMNMA for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3021A88DB for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,796,1406617200"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="163405038" Received: from hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.37]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 08:49:14 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:49:13 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::9047:8c6c:1d6e:4581%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:49:13 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Toby Moncaster Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP7tSGvqAI4IGI80qY8Q2Q+isV85xDnofwgACEeYCAAG0kgIAAASiAgAABdwA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:49:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA6EE5BB-A9D9-4F80-BF8A-9A5AF94840F9"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/OKFn8lCmqow2q2ugVoQYB2nf7Jc Cc: Weixinpeng , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:49:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BA6EE5BB-A9D9-4F80-BF8A-9A5AF94840F9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Please don=92t post links to patents on IETF/IRRTF lists. If you need to make a third-party disclosure, please do so at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ Lars --Apple-Mail=_BA6EE5BB-A9D9-4F80-BF8A-9A5AF94840F9 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMVzCCBhsw ggUDoAMCAQICAwhPlDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0 YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcx ODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENB MB4XDTEzMTIwNjA3MDk0N1oXDTE0MTIwNzA3MDY0MVowOjEYMBYGA1UEAwwPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAu Y29tMR4wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg9sYXJzQG5ldGFwcC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDS6c3AH5ZSxTExtqA4RCkRMWmh84KVsbd85iNmeq2VHJv2Pc9TXG6aZz7r3Fjp qXV+VtHlHOzZ1ncpMV0ldJMgi8F45/5WpSMEg4sXnYdtheE3drgWeR816PEaydHqSnaMNutAC7Td ykkOFHXIsVg8IblDXhfiVQiZBZd+Wz6BpyMe59gr4Bpveft18uPQIXSxE95EsDTMyd/UDLVB+AkB gHhO0+XxauzCbNUnubyiYYGOzgQ9G8J3Ewgrr/nVR+CrBCYgIsBP3foo0/h1hE7dHyI0Gl341yR7 J0AHDQ0DPIQOQtscFuRlthksCZLCfVSK6Mh6hVCOMEjVJxrgeBU3AgMBAAGjggLVMIIC0TAJBgNV HRMEAjAAMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0O BBYEFHIOXgd2Y3/7a+OqwJ2giDTpYULAMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFFNy7ZKc4NrLAVx8fpY1TvLUuFGC MBoGA1UdEQQTMBGBD2xhcnNAbmV0YXBwLmNvbTCCAUwGA1UdIASCAUMwggE/MIIBOwYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgMwggEqMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRm MIH3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCB6jAnFiBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTADAgEB GoG+VGhpcyBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSB3YXMgaXNzdWVkIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byB0aGUgQ2xhc3MgMSBW YWxpZGF0aW9uIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ0EgcG9saWN5LCByZWxpYW5j ZSBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcHVycG9zZSBpbiBjb21wbGlhbmNlIG9mIHRoZSByZWx5 aW5nIHBhcnR5IG9ibGlnYXRpb25zLjA2BgNVHR8ELzAtMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0 c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1MS1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMS9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0 dHA6Ly9haWEuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczEuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNV HRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggEBAMCLv+Qk QYJxSendSLJPbFKuMkgm1PdAVoqxKAi8HmbirBTPhxh0vzhmZ/rneCHHlqY4p6r81+Se9HsqDsB6 DBQ/IbNgs7FQlCqOvCIwbn7VK+k/0eJAyOjIaUDPoD1ZaA1AkaFjJxvD2ZUZLBNq4AvOuP52j0Dm i0FBC6pbBfnz57wuB++3P4NBTfZABbdazHlxl/2z1RGQNGov3R6zwNZLbxU2o2ftEJ48j4unuHjP islFru3GRp4dbm5JLuHjUdDyXtMw6CdDvlmWQCcAgtEfqbGDp9bSSE9vbXbgf8n6iHoIA96HnTBW BTDERdixe8t0T9AyT4ks9eHFLPL+PbwwggY0MIIEHKADAgECAgEeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMH0x CzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGln aXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMSkwJwYDVQQDEyBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9u IEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw0wNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaFw0xNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJ TDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVk aWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDHCYPMzi3YGrEp pC4Tq5a+ijKDjKaIQZZVR63UbxIP6uq/I0fhCu+cQhoUfE6ERKKnu8zPf1Jwuk0tsvVCk6U9b+0U jM0dLep3ZdE1gblK/1FwYT5Pipsu2yOMluLqwvsuz9/9f1+1PKHG/FaR/wpbfuIqu54qzHDYeqiU fsYzoVflR80DAC7hmJ+SmZnNTWyUGHJbBpA8Q89lGxahNvuryGaC/o2/ceD2uYDX9U8Eg5DpIpGQ dcbQeGarV04WgAUjjXX5r/2dabmtxWMZwhZna//jdiSyrrSMTGKkDiXm6/3/4ebfeZuCYKzN2P8O 2F/Xe2AC/Y7zeEsnR7FOp+uXAgMBAAGjggGtMIIBqTAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MA4GA1UdDwEB /wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUTgvvGqRA W6UXaYcwyjRoQ9BBrvIwZgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEWjBYMCcGCCsGAQUFBzABhhtodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2EwLQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2Nh LmNydDBbBgNVHR8EVDBSMCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zZnNjYS5jcmww J6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDCBgAYDVR0gBHkwdzB1Bgsr BgEEAYG1NwECATBmMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUucGRm MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4ICAQAKgwh9eKssBly4Y4xerhy5I3dNoXHYfYa8PlVLL/qtXnkFgdtY 1o95CfegFJTwqBBmf8pyTUnFsukDFUI22zF5bVHzuJ+GxhnSqN2sD1qetbYwBYK2iyYA5Pg7Er1A +hKMIzEzcduRkIMmCeUTyMyikfbUFvIBivtvkR8ZFAk22BZy+pJfAoedO61HTz4qSfQoCRcLN5A0 t4DkuVhTMXIzuQ8CnykhExD6x4e6ebIbrjZLb7L+ocR0y4YjCl/Pd4MXU91y0vTipgr/O75CDUHD RHCCKBVmz/Rzkc/b970MEeHt5LC3NiWTgBSvrLEuVzBKM586YoRD9Dy3OHQgWI270g+5MYA8GfgI /EPT5G7xPbCDz+zjdH89PeR3U4So4lSXur6H6vp+m9TQXPF3a0LwZrp8MQ+Z77U1uL7TelWO5lAp sbAonrqASfTpaprFVkL4nyGH+NHST2ZJPWIBk81i6Vw0ny0qZW2Niy/QvVNKbb43A43ny076khXO 7cNbBIRdJ/6qQNq9Bqb5C0Q5nEsFcj75oxQRqlKf6TcvGbjxkJh8BYtv9ePsXklAxtm8J7GCUBth HSQgepbkOexhJ0wP8imUkyiPHQ0GvEnd83129fZjoEhdGwXV27ioRKbj/cIq7JRXun0NbeY+UdMY u9jGfIpDLtUUGSgsg2zMGs5R4jGCA28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UE ChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2ln bmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGll bnQgQ0ECAwhPlDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDEwMjcxNTQ5MDdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBS41xjj8G9l03CtnUXwuqex eqmz2zCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGXMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwhP lDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeggZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENv bSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYD VQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDCE+U MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAMmz6aKlu71c/K99umNSj00fiLEfEt5WjJkyNXLzAelFk7K2kvcD j1vi9vOwCzIqe4qcDjj6I6A3tdKgFlgBRmKtSF0ip+7Q+UhiDo7RQBcxCCnEwuKnCuKfnrNMk5UU poveVP0MUIUgDDb678xSlo2Ggx8J87gkpOwuyee2gc41GYfDANpQ0lRkfCTSz1NmDtA3LKRlWM9R oJZAExbcPfg0HBbpV9riJdl1VkSGD+AWQb0jO+DuZ8WWVhK+23SQgjiNFdiIPOp29kT7vukqZuw1 XdvpVYYtisMU7wExx5fwfZiP1IgujLpCeUO2S5AUBrfNX6SeIqQNtd9qQrTmSDEAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_BA6EE5BB-A9D9-4F80-BF8A-9A5AF94840F9-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 15:34:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FCE1A1B2F for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYq0tBJ-uLcK for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 201D01A1B23 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) by EVMHR65-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:51:45 +0000 Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:33:53 +0000 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:33:50 +0000 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.38.168]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s9RMXm8h017085; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:33:49 GMT Message-ID: <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:33:24 +0000 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/bP2Tsrte-TUDVklNQeen3dn02wM Cc: Weixinpeng , "Eggert, Lars" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:34:06 -0000 Fred, Lars, This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors: It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc mtg, but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the direction of the group. (I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction with Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres) And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its IPR related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here: Bob At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/signed; > boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 > > >On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > > > Hi Xinpeng, > > > > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: > >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our > work on tunnel-based congestion control. > >> The following is a link to the document. > >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback/ > > > > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in > datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all > about wide area networks? > > > > Thanks, > > Lars > >I'm scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she >can comment here. > >The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple >data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within >a data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also >mentioned latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP. > >Where I'm scratching my head is figuring out what it's actually >trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented >in a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures >such as OpenStack. It doesn't seem to make obvious points about that >such as are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having >experienced congestion, that information needs to be reflected in >the interior header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit >about IPFIX. I'm not sure I walked away with "so do this". > > >_______________________________________________ >Dclc mailing list >Dclc@irtf.org >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Mon Oct 27 16:34:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA3E1A7035 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:34:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EP9kZ-mzZPr for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12DFA1A7033 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:34:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4351; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414452863; x=1415662463; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AA2a74S6O+iCyhLY77vy0vsv+p3Wis1In95+Yr6Bxpg=; b=WisOfXzkPszF3xqTaQnNIopCucLqalKZ9eVUa1PbjG5TMFhHjqtlHvUw JiT0O/c2+EL21K1+KXO8mp/G8L5QsuKPx9oE5briv442Q10T60RMeO/ir IR2GZQqFDdDKXJ1+DzQ3eYqpSVUbzpHvZn9T3sOaXeGNRf/AZHd+4bw7I g=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAH/VTlStJA2N/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATNTQyGd1QCgRgWAX2EAgEBAQIBAQEBAWsLBQsCAQgYLicLJQIEDgUOiCoJDctOAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5AbCBQBAU8Hgy2BHgWSB4IQgVBohxKBMTyGOo4Hg3hsAYEOOYEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,798,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="90819827" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 23:34:22 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RNYLow012109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:34:22 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:34:21 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Bob Briscoe Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP8j6Ix4oh840unUW/MQwTW1bRwg== Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:34:21 +0000 Message-ID: <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com> References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A305B654-9E52-49FB-BD22-0A015A1AE948"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/tKW4-828ctGUHfxmIH2lw8yZMIs Cc: Weixinpeng , "Eggert, Lars" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:34:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A305B654-9E52-49FB-BD22-0A015A1AE948 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Fred, Lars, >=20 > This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by = implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors: > >=20 > It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc mtg, = but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the direction of the = group. > = > (I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction with = Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres) Maybe the two discussions. I agree that a vSwitch or hypervisor can be = the tunnel endpoint, and RFC 2983 tells us how to manage the CU flags = between the two IP headers. The question in my mind is how that = interacts with latency. Where things stand right now, this is likely to be our entire agenda. = There is some work from KAIST and RedHat/Morgan Stanley that I would = have liked to see discussed, and they want to delay until March. I=92ll post an agenda showing the two discussions. Happy to have = discussion from the floor as well. > And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its IPR = related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including = royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here: > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 > At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> Content-Language: en-US >> Content-Type: multipart/signed; >> boundary=3D"Apple-Mail=3D_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8";= >> protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature"; micalg=3Dpgp-sha1 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>=20 >> > Hi Xinpeng, >> > >> > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: >> >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our = work on tunnel-based congestion control. >> >> The following is a link to the document. >> >> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback= / >> > >> > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in = datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about = wide area networks? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Lars >>=20 >> I'm scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she = can comment here. >>=20 >> The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple = data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a = data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned = latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP. >>=20 >> Where I'm scratching my head is figuring out what it's actually = trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in = a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as = OpenStack. It doesn't seem to make obvious points about that such as are = made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced = congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior = header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I'm not = sure I walked away with "so do this". >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Dclc mailing list >> Dclc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT=20 --Apple-Mail=_A305B654-9E52-49FB-BD22-0A015A1AE948 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD4DBQFUTtZ7bjEdbHIsm0MRAu9WAJYzBnb4KchWZWQplWNnAfHo7oX+AKDgrFy0 RoZaw/P3jbMw8U2BbD7j6Q== =s8HI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A305B654-9E52-49FB-BD22-0A015A1AE948-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 16:55:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0AE1A87A5 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:55:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RtuvnLNdZiGR for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-by-04.bt.com (hubrelay-by-04.bt.com [62.7.242.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6421F1A86F7 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) by EVMHR04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:55:57 +0000 Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:50 +0000 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:49 +0000 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.38.168]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s9RNsmZM017287; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:48 GMT Message-ID: <201410272354.s9RNsmZM017287@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:47 +0000 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com> References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/hXbc19QCpS7t_bWcGuzh_oPeXaE Cc: Weixinpeng , "Eggert, Lars" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:55:09 -0000 Fred, At 23:34 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > > > Fred, Lars, > > > > This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by > implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors: > > > > > > It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc > mtg, but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the > direction of the group. > > > > > (I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction > with Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres) > >Maybe the two discussions. I agree that a vSwitch or hypervisor can >be the tunnel endpoint, and RFC 2983 tells us how to manage the CU >flags between the two IP headers. The question in my mind is how >that interacts with latency. I can't answer for Xinpeng, but in my case there's a congestion policer in each ingress hypervisor and the fill rates of all the tenants' token buckets (in units of ECN marks) bounds the growth of the FIFO AQM queue that all tenants share. This policer focuses drop on any tenant(s) that would otherwise cause heavier congestion, but it isolates all the other tenants from any queuing beyond the configured bound. The pathetic part is I can't give any results, at least not in a data centre scenario. Bob >Where things stand right now, this is likely to be our entire >agenda. There is some work from KAIST and RedHat/Morgan Stanley that >I would have liked to see discussed, and they want to delay until March. > >I'll post an agenda showing the two discussions. Happy to have >discussion from the floor as well. > > > And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its > IPR related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including > royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here: > > > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> Content-Language: en-US > >> Content-Type: multipart/signed; > >> boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; > >> protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 > >> > >> > >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Xinpeng, > >> > > >> > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: > >> >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show > our work on tunnel-based congestion control. > >> >> The following is a link to the document. > >> >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback/ > >> > > >> > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control > in datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all > about wide area networks? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Lars > >> > >> I'm scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe > she can comment here. > >> > >> The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across > multiple data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily > implemented within a data center, and specifically mentions data > centers. It also mentioned latency in passing, in the third > paragraph of the section on 3GPP. > >> > >> Where I'm scratching my head is figuring out what it's actually > trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be > implemented in a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in > architectures such as OpenStack. It doesn't seem to make obvious > points about that such as are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is > marked as having experienced congestion, that information needs to > be reflected in the interior header at the tunnel endpoint. It > talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I'm not sure I walked away with "so do this". > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dclc mailing list > >> Dclc@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Bob Briscoe, BT > > ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Mon Oct 27 16:59:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8716F1A87BD for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M0ihlvcnXub8 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFE71A1B39 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:59:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5394; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414454340; x=1415663940; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=8WJ1R1ylmVBzKwzT1mTXMUdMRHU5IYrGfWflB9AimSE=; b=jjbURe4OLTnoLohYdrLD1BRUxGvhSwyeIYhlwE3qoS1Mqphrshd6tH3l /NImHMh0/5OV7SRT/kIAWFKxvlH4PbhDuPDGfSa1DRnkV2hRCkoPkkiDA Tj8y1hweqxjLT5C2tircNmyEVVwNPVHBqwrHlFOaiw5/OBQxN4e4rl92Q o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAGrbTlStJV2R/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATNTQyGd1QCgRgWAX2EAgEBAQIBAQEBAWsLBQsCAQgYLicLJQIEDgUOiCoJDcs+AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5AbCBQBAU8Hgy2BHgWSB4IQgVBohxKBMTyGOo4Hg3hsAYEOOYEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,798,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="366940873" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 23:58:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RNwwHw025164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:58:58 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:58:58 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Bob Briscoe Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP8kH47OGpOhQ4bE2CR6A5IYa/VA== Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1FB54E87-B7EA-47B0-9823-7D64E0A79B5C@cisco.com> References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com> <201410272354.s9RNsmZM017287@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <201410272354.s9RNsmZM017287@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_88AE151C-0E85-43D1-9EF0-E3D042A16180"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/x6R4vLDg-F2HAF-y60U9_rO35UY Cc: Weixinpeng , "Eggert, Lars" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:59:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_88AE151C-0E85-43D1-9EF0-E3D042A16180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Fred, >=20 > At 23:34 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >=20 >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: >>=20 >> > Fred, Lars, >> > >> > This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by = implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors: >> > >> > >> > It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc = mtg, but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the direction of = the group. >> > = >> > (I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction with = Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres) >>=20 >> Maybe the two discussions. I agree that a vSwitch or hypervisor can = be the tunnel endpoint, and RFC 2983 tells us how to manage the CU flags = between the two IP headers. The question in my mind is how that = interacts with latency. >=20 > I can't answer for Xinpeng, but in my case there's a congestion = policer in each ingress hypervisor and the fill rates of all the = tenants' token buckets (in units of ECN marks) bounds the growth of the = FIFO AQM queue that all tenants share. This policer focuses drop on any = tenant(s) that would otherwise cause heavier congestion, but it isolates = all the other tenants from any queuing beyond the configured bound. >=20 > The pathetic part is I can't give any results, at least not in a data = centre scenario. I know the feeling. But we can discuss the concept. > Bob >=20 >=20 >> Where things stand right now, this is likely to be our entire agenda. = There is some work from KAIST and RedHat/Morgan Stanley that I would = have liked to see discussed, and they want to delay until March. >>=20 >> I'll post an agenda showing the two discussions. Happy to have = discussion from the floor as well. >>=20 >> > And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its = IPR related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including = royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >> Content-Language: en-US >> >> Content-Type: multipart/signed; >> >> = boundary=3D"Apple-Mail=3D_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; >> >> protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature"; micalg=3Dpgp-sha1 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Xinpeng, >> >> > >> >> > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng = wrote: >> >> >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show = our work on tunnel-based congestion control. >> >> >> The following is a link to the document. >> >> >> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback= / >> >> > >> >> > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control = in datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about = wide area networks? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Lars >> >> >> >> I'm scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe = she can comment here. >> >> >> >> The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across = multiple data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented = within a data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also = mentioned latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on = 3GPP. >> >> >> >> Where I'm scratching my head is figuring out what it's actually = trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in = a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as = OpenStack. It doesn't seem to make obvious points about that such as are = made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced = congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior = header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I'm not = sure I walked away with "so do this". >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Dclc mailing list >> >> Dclc@irtf.org >> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc >> > >> > ________________________________________________________________ >> > Bob Briscoe, BT >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT --Apple-Mail=_88AE151C-0E85-43D1-9EF0-E3D042A16180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFUTtw/bjEdbHIsm0MRAqe5AKCiACm1g37P2Sa60tCI3rNO2bMHKwCgsRSl lhLYaB7N6AX2aMdK9RzMv2k= =SGlc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_88AE151C-0E85-43D1-9EF0-E3D042A16180-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 17:18:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8911A8547 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:18:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQjq31uLb-oG for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DCB21A8791 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:18:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1468; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414455483; x=1415665083; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=BcscHyjgTX94U3DW3lRls8XX4S4ngHo7G+E9/4lqJe4=; b=HDV7gen0D26L99Irc8ZNly+cM4izGrQ4EztYm9eWG6+3v0zK/A/yXJMi XaoFRDLlAIHcaXNXWcx1wa9D5UTe0kXT7VJ0LKoejoRN6V10qJJM1Lh5W 9GdJed6ZeYXrL1GJt3R2EIRDuYf2Av0TjGfIPBbDvBH8jhmaQVDdmE9fK Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FABDgTlStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWQPNV4hnFgF9hAmBCwGBACcEHAWIMw2ma6RFAQEBBwEBAQEBAQEblDyBHgWSB4IQgVBohxKBMYNJkTSDeII0gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,799,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="367199887" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2014 00:18:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9S0I15j013114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:18:01 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:18:01 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: dclc Thread-Topic: Data Center Latency Control Agenda Thread-Index: AQHP8kShlOIpODDelkm1xnFjODuudw== Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:18:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ECBA3DF9-01D4-4B37-AF51-39701A4FADBF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/UfAhAH-1IEKUAm-fE9KM-EdVCH4 Subject: [Dclc] Data Center Latency Control Agenda X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:18:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ECBA3DF9-01D4-4B37-AF51-39701A4FADBF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I have uploaded the attached agenda to = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-dclcrg Data Center Latency Control - IETF 91 Tuesday November 11, 13:00 Administrivia Tunnel Congestion Feedback 2014-10-07 , Network Performance Isolation in Data Centres using Congestion Policing 2014-10-07 , TCP Parameter Dynamic Control 2014-10-07 , Draft Status The status of DCLC RG drafts may be determined from = https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dclc/. Unless he tells me otherwise, I assume I have Bob=92s slides. I=92ll = need any slides the other two presentations want to use by Saturday 8 = November, please, as the meeting is Tuesday afternoon. --Apple-Mail=_ECBA3DF9-01D4-4B37-AF51-39701A4FADBF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFUTuC3bjEdbHIsm0MRAvazAJ4/DIrnGTk6PM3vlL1urT1v0ztSkgCdHLlj XDvJKXt2ANp/edV9DdE2OZo= =Ruf0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_ECBA3DF9-01D4-4B37-AF51-39701A4FADBF-- From nobody Tue Oct 28 00:35:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66D11A0398 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:35:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rfHD5CM5iDyl for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94CD1A0396 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDN80832; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:35:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from NKGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.43]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:35:20 +0800 From: Weixinpeng To: Bob Briscoe , "Fred Baker (fred)" , "Eggert, Lars" Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics Thread-Index: AQHP7tSGvqAI4IGI80qY8Q2Q+isV85xDnofwgACEeYD//3GvgIAAc5UAgADMTGA= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:35:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.76.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/YgpoG_4v2Jyx-aTuOyMtnLN20xA Cc: "Zhulei \(MBB Research\)" , dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:35:51 -0000 Hi all, Thanks for your comments. Let me give some more detailed clarification on this issue. You are right that the initial purpose of draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion= -feedback is to solve network congestion, ECN is used in the tunnel, ECN marks are used as an indication of congestio= n status of routers' buffers, and the document tries to provide a solution to feed back this indication to tunnel ingress = for the ingress to implement congestion control. We assume latency mainly caused by queue length in the network. For congestion control, the packets are marked when the buffer is filled to= a specific threshold; but for latency control, we can mark packets in another way: the packets are marked according to queue's le= ngth, which means as queue grows the number of marked packets grows, as queue decreases the number of marked packets decreases. S= o we can collect the number of marked packets to learn about information of queue length status and to do latency control at tunnel ingr= ess based on this information. About IPFIX, I am not sure whether it is suitable in DC, we can see it just= as a possible method for information feedback, and there could be other candidates. So I suggest currently we don't focus on this aspect. Regards, -Xinpeng >-----Original Message----- >From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:33 AM >To: Fred Baker (fred) >Cc: Eggert, Lars; Weixinpeng; dclc >Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics > >Fred, Lars, > >This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by implementing t= he >tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors: > > >It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc mtg, but I= gave >up the slot so we had longer to discuss the direction of the group. >pdf> >(I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction with Xinpen= g if >you establish that it will be relevant to data centres) > > >And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its IPR rela= ted to >this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including royalty-free terms un= der >the conditions specified here: > > > > >Bob > >At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>Content-Language: en-US >>Content-Type: multipart/signed; >> >boundary=3D"Apple-Mail=3D_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; >> protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature"; micalg=3Dpgp-sha1 >> >> >>On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> >> > Hi Xinpeng, >> > >> > On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng wrote: >> >> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our >> work on tunnel-based congestion control. >> >> The following is a link to the document. >> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feed >> back/ >> > >> > could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in >> datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about >> wide area networks? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Lars >> >>I'm scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she can >>comment here. >> >>The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple >>data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a >>data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned >>latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP. >> >>Where I'm scratching my head is figuring out what it's actually trying >>to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in a >>vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as >>OpenStack. It doesn't seem to make obvious points about that such as >>are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced >>congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior >>header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I'm >>not sure I walked away with "so do this". >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dclc mailing list >>Dclc@irtf.org >>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc > >____________________________________________________________ >____ >Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Tue Oct 28 09:48:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DE81A90ED for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yKuX5pvkHCx for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3141D1A9114 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) by EVMHR67-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:41:27 +0000 Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:41:26 +0000 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:41:26 +0000 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.120.116]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s9SGfOfW020198; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:41:25 GMT Message-ID: <201410281641.s9SGfOfW020198@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:41:23 +0000 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/DGM8Yy2zQiz5O0RqwhhPgGh3JEs Cc: dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Data Center Latency Control Agenda X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:48:01 -0000 Fred, I just noticed dclc clashes with tsvwg. How did that happen? (I will come to dclc) (and yes assume my slides are still OK unless I get round to sending an update) Bob At 00:18 28/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/signed; > boundary="Apple-Mail=_ECBA3DF9-01D4-4B37-AF51-39701A4FADBF"; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 > >I have uploaded the attached agenda to >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-dclcrg >Data Center Latency Control - IETF 91 > >Tuesday November 11, 13:00 > >Administrivia >Tunnel Congestion Feedback >2014-10-07 , >Network Performance Isolation in Data Centres using Congestion Policing >2014-10-07 , >TCP Parameter Dynamic Control >2014-10-07 , >Draft Status > > The status of DCLC RG drafts may be determined from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dclc/. > > > > >Unless he tells me otherwise, I assume I have Bob's slides. I'll >need any slides the other two presentations want to use by Saturday >8 November, please, as the meeting is Tuesday afternoon. > > >_______________________________________________ >Dclc mailing list >Dclc@irtf.org >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Tue Oct 28 09:50:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC7B1A90CA for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzL4zukKITAF for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F451A90DA for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:45:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1003; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414514715; x=1415724315; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4WX9zQM3+b1DIhp3FPeBNOkiTgiMAINQHGmmmNDnfVs=; b=KRW3/h83+xup0wVqyF/UWe7o8t8zoHOe3B0hI96K4yDgzq0frDA/4Q7n fioqAfRyWLWisLqIJ+wVV3ykNlDu+wRpb0tOZ3X2HpcAq0O+cCYfojwmQ ZAnCdL0Hy5RDDE9wxDve/jlf/xMx4hXMBtC9/56FOpU34Mmn9TVODrFgg 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAJ/HT1StJV2c/2dsb2JhbABcgw6BLATWCAKBHRYBAQEBAX2EAwEBAwF5BQsCAQhGMiUCBA4FDogqCclqAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5EJB4MtgR4FkguCEoFQh3uWNoN4bIFIgQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,803,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="367149297" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2014 16:45:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9SGjDmE027719 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:45:13 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:45:13 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Bob Briscoe Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Data Center Latency Control Agenda Thread-Index: AQHP8s6Lwz3tUMGlVUWQZ0GXax4iXw== Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:45:13 +0000 Message-ID: <940CB80B-2E95-4D95-A4AA-E9688FF55ECC@cisco.com> References: <201410281641.s9SGfOfW020198@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <201410281641.s9SGfOfW020198@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.120] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_847AD6C2-F7F0-4C2A-A113-C668C73B53DB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/ZDds6eL_IQQtlq7YnRv1UnkScao Cc: dclc Subject: Re: [Dclc] Data Center Latency Control Agenda X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:50:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_847AD6C2-F7F0-4C2A-A113-C668C73B53DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 28, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > I just noticed dclc clashes with tsvwg. How did that happen? RGs, especially RGs-that-aren=92t-quite-RGs-yet, aren=92t working = groups. They get space where space is available. We can try to move it, = but it=92s pretty late in the game. --Apple-Mail=_847AD6C2-F7F0-4C2A-A113-C668C73B53DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFUT8gLbjEdbHIsm0MRAqwJAKC1PIo07Xg93bHOOfwQou8BxdBduACeNIit qnv1296HQPY/nrg8LJhWbaE= =2eSa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_847AD6C2-F7F0-4C2A-A113-C668C73B53DB-- From nobody Wed Oct 29 01:48:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE891A1A79 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:48:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlrqTq44jb8J for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CC6D1A0A6A for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDP51285; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:48:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:45:15 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: "'dclc'" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-song-dclc-tcpdc-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHP8iooc7FrI1hx70+te8rtn9HBjpxGw/ZA Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:45:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.49] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/BlMZXgNnkcPPaVR8rJIrW5094V4 Subject: [Dclc] FW: New Version Notification for draft-song-dclc-tcpdc-04.txt X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:48:56 -0000 SGksDQoNCldlIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBhIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0IHdpdGggYSBtaW5vciB1 cGRhdGUuIEFuZCB3ZSBzdGlsbCBrZWVwIGltcHJvdmluZyBpdC4gQW55b25lIHdobyBpcyBpbnRl cmVzdGVkIGluIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgaXMgd2VsY29tZSB0byBnaXZlIGNvbW1lbnRzL2lucHV0L3F1 ZXN0aW9ucyB0byB0aGUgZHJhZnQuIA0KDQo+IFVSTDoNCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50 ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXNvbmctZGNsYy10Y3BkYy0wNC50eHQNCg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2Fy ZHMhDQotSGFpYmluDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBp bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmdd DQo+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE9jdG9iZXIgMjgsIDIwMTQgNTowOCBBTQ0KPiBUbzogU29uZ2hh aWJpbiAoQSk7IFlhc2hhciBHYW5qYWxpOyBTb25naGFpYmluIChBKTsgSHVhbmd5aWhvbmcgKFJh Y2hlbCk7IFlhc2hhcg0KPiBHYW5qYWxpOyBNb25pYSBHaG9iYWRpOyBIdWFuZ3lpaG9uZyAoUmFj aGVsKTsgTW9uaWEgR2hvYmFkaQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24g Zm9yIGRyYWZ0LXNvbmctZGNsYy10Y3BkYy0wNC50eHQNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9u IG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtc29uZy1kY2xjLXRjcGRjLTA0LnR4dCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVs bHkNCj4gc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IE1vbmlhIEdob2JhZGkgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiBy ZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KPiANCj4gTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LXNvbmctZGNsYy10Y3BkYw0KPiBSZXZpc2lv bjoJMDQNCj4gVGl0bGU6CQlUQ1AgUGFyYW1ldGVyIER5bmFtaWMgQ29udHJvbA0KPiBEb2N1bWVu dCBkYXRlOgkyMDE0LTEwLTI3DQo+IEdyb3VwOgkJSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQo+IFBh Z2VzOgkJMTQNCj4gVVJMOg0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9k cmFmdC1zb25nLWRjbGMtdGNwZGMtMDQudHh0DQo+IFN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL2Rh dGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1zb25nLWRjbGMtdGNwZGMvDQo+IEh0bWxpemVk OiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1zb25nLWRjbGMtdGNwZGMt MDQNCj4gRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRy YWZ0LXNvbmctZGNsYy10Y3BkYy0wNA0KPiANCj4gQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQo+ICAgIENvbmdlc3Rpb24g Y29udHJvbCBoYXMgYmVlbiBleHRlbnNpdmVseSBzdHVkaWVkIGZvciBtYW55IHllYXJzLg0KPiAg ICBUb2RheSwgdGhlIFRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBDb250cm9sIFByb3RvY29sIChUQ1ApIGlzIHVzZWQg aW4gYSB3aWRlDQo+ICAgIHJhbmdlIG9mIG5ldHdvcmtzIChMQU4sIFdBTiwgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIs IGNhbXB1cyBuZXR3b3JrLCBlbnRlcnByaXNlDQo+ICAgIG5ldHdvcmssIGV0Yy4pIGFzIHRoZSBk ZSBmYWN0byBjb25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgbWVjaGFuaXNtLiBEZXNwaXRlDQo+ICAgIGl0cyBj b21tb24gdXNhZ2UsIFRDUCBvcGVyYXRlcyBpbiB0aGVzZSBuZXR3b3JrcyB3aXRoIGxpdHRsZQ0K PiAgICBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIHVuZGVybHlpbmcgbmV0d29yayBvciB0cmFmZmljIGNoYXJh Y3RlcmlzdGljcy4gQXMgYQ0KPiAgICByZXN1bHQsIGl0IGlzIGRlZW1lZCB0byBjb250aW51b3Vz bHkgaW5jcmVhc2Ugb3IgZGVjcmVhc2UgaXRzDQo+ICAgIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gd2luZG93IHNpemUg aW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gaGFuZGxlIGNoYW5nZXMgaW4gdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgb3INCj4gICAgdHJhZmZp YyBjb25kaXRpb25zLiBUaHVzLCBUQ1AgZnJlcXVlbnRseSBvdmVyc2hvb3RzIG9yIHVuZGVyc2hv b3RzDQo+ICAgIHRoZSBpZGVhbCByYXRlIG1ha2luZyBpdCBhICJKYWNrIG9mIGFsbCB0cmFkZXMs IG1hc3RlciBvZiBub25lIg0KPiAgICBjb25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgcHJvdG9jb2wuIEluIGxp Z2h0IG9mIHRoZSBlbWVyZ2luZyBwb3B1bGFyaXR5IG9mDQo+ICAgIGNlbnRyYWxseSBjb250cm9s bGVkIG5ldHdvcmtzIHN1Y2ggYXMgU29mdHdhcmUtRGVmaW5lZCBOZXR3b3Jrcw0KPiAgICAoU0RO cyksIHdlIHByb3Bvc2UgYSBmcmFtZXdvcmsgdGhhdCB0YWtlcyBhZHZhbnRhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlDQo+ ICAgIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0aGUgY2VudHJhbCBjb250cm9sbGVyIHRvIGlt cHJvdmUgVENQLg0KPiAgICBTcGVjaWZpY2FsbHksIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHdlIHByb3Bv c2UgT3BlblRDUCBhcyBhIGR5bmFtaWMgYW5kDQo+ICAgIHByb2dyYW1tYWJsZSBUQ1AgYWRhcHRh dGlvbiBmcmFtZXdvcmsgZm9yIGNlbnRyYWxseSBjb250cm9sbGVkDQo+ICAgIG5ldHdvcmtzLiBP cGVuVENQIGdhdGhlcnMgZ2xvYmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgb2YgdGhl DQo+ICAgIG5ldHdvcmsgYW5kIHRyYWZmaWMgY29uZGl0aW9ucyB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBjZW50cmFs aXplZCBjb250cm9sbGVyLA0KPiAgICBhbmQgdXNlcyB0aGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRvIGFkYXB0 IFRDUC4gT3BlblRDUCBwZXJpb2RpY2FsbHkgc2VuZHMNCj4gICAgdXBkYXRlcyB0byBlbmQtaG9z dHMgd2hpY2gsIGluIHR1cm4sIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGVpciBiZWhhdmlvdXIgdXNpbmcgYQ0KPiAgICBz aW1wbGUga2VybmVsIG1vZHVsZS4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIGEg ZnJhbWV3b3JrIGFuZCBtZXNzYWdlIGZsb3dzIGZvciBjZW50cmFsaXplZA0KPiAgICBjb25nZXN0 aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgcGFyYW1ldGVyIGFkYXB0YXRpb24gYmFzZWQgb24gY29uZ2VzdGlvbiBjb250 cm9sDQo+ICAgIHBvbGljaWVzIGFuZCBuZXR3b3JrIHN0YXR1cyBtZWFzdXJlbWVudHMsIHNvIHRo YXQgZWFjaCBlbmQgaG9zdCBpbiBhDQo+ICAgIG5ldHdvcmsgY2FuIG1ha2UgYmV0dGVyIHVzZSBv ZiB0aGUgbmV0d29yayByZXNvdXJjZSBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlDQo+ICAgIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBy ZXNvdXJjZXMuIEluIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2UgdXNlIFRDUCBhcyBhDQo+ ICAgIHN0YW5kYXJkIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gY29udHJvbCBtZWNoYW5pc20sIGJ1dCB0aGUgc2FtZSBp ZGVhIGNhbiBiZQ0KPiAgICBhcHBsaWVkIHRvIG90aGVyIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gY29udHJvbCBwcm90 b2NvbHMgYXMgd2VsbC4gQSBUQ1ANCj4gICAgT3B0aW1pemF0aW9uIEVsZW1lbnQgYW5kIGEgVENQ IE9wdGltaXphdGlvbiBBZ2VudCBhcmUgaW50cm9kdWNlZC4gVGhlDQo+ICAgIG1lc3NhZ2UgcGF0 dGVybnMgaW5jbHVkZSByZXF1ZXN0IHJlc3BvbnNlIGFuZA0KPiAgICBzdWJzY3JpcHRpb24vbm90 aWZpY2F0aW9uLiBUaGlzIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCBpbiBuZXR3b3JrDQo+ICAgIHNl cnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXJzJyBuZXR3b3JrcywgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBpbiBkYXRhIGNlbnRlciBuZXR3 b3Jrcy4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtl IGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uDQo+IHVudGls IHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0 Zi5vcmcuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo=