From bob.briscoe@bt.com Wed Aug 1 13:32:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C937611E81B6 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1H83Oz0A-JZK for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp64.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949FE11E81D0 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHT65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.102) by RDW083A008ED64.smtp-e4.hygiene.service (10.187.98.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:32:40 +0100 Received: from EVMHT04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.57) by EVMHT65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:32:40 +0100 Received: from EMV04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.122]) by EVMHT04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.108.57]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:32:40 +0100 From: To: , Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:32:39 +0100 Thread-Topic: Slides for draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre Thread-Index: AQHNcCTLF0mupsFpo0WZT+m5UabBWQ== Message-ID: <69ACA3A4BA39B0499C1917FB0718BB254BE747BBA7@EMV04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69ACA3A4BA39B0499C1917FB0718BB254BE747BBA7EMV04UKBRdoma_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: conex@ietf.org Subject: [conex] Slides for draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:32:42 -0000 --_000_69ACA3A4BA39B0499C1917FB0718BB254BE747BBA7EMV04UKBRdoma_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nandita, Marcelo, [Adding the list to the distr.] Slides: Many apologies for delivery right up to the line. Bob --_000_69ACA3A4BA39B0499C1917FB0718BB254BE747BBA7EMV04UKBRdoma_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nandita, Marcelo,

 

[Adding the list to the distr.]



Slides:
<http://www.bobbriscoe.net/presents/1207ietf/= 1207-conex-data-centre.ppt>
<http://www.bobbriscoe.net/presents/1207ietf/= 1207-conex-data-centre.pdf>

Many apologies for delivery right up to the line.

 




Bob

=  
--_000_69ACA3A4BA39B0499C1917FB0718BB254BE747BBA7EMV04UKBRdoma_-- From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Aug 1 15:05:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550DA11E8195 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.963 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id im7cyeB9nLj8 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C4711E817E for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q71M5mT4017207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 00:05:49 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 00:05:48 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: "conex@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 00:05:46 +0200 Thread-Topic: Problem solved by draft-ietf-conex-mobile-00? Thread-Index: Ac1wMc2G9E8UBNpHSfy68oLDkVsw0A== Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BBD62@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Subject: [conex] Problem solved by draft-ietf-conex-mobile-00? X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:05:53 -0000 I've not followed that draft in the past, sorry about that. But reading thr= ough it right now, I have a hard time of understanding it. The use cases in section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 do not seem to be very diff= erent to other access networks, except that they are described here in non-= IETF terminology. Also, I don't understand what is specific to mobile networks in Figure 2, 3= , and 4. Figure 2 is basically about running conex outside the mobile netwo= rk and thus not much specifc to mobile. Figure 3 seems to be an end-to-end = path over the Internet, which is a full conex deployement and thus not spec= ific to mobile neither. The most interesting use case for partial deployment seems to be Figure 4. = But in that case the document does not explain how conex would be terminate= d at the edge router of the mobile network (P-GW), and what would be the sp= ecific advantage of using this partial deployment in a 3GPP network. I do understand that Wifi offloading would be a specific use case for mobil= e networks. To me, this looks similar to congestion-aware routing. But that= use case requires a more detailed description how conex information would = be used, and under which constraints it can actually be used. For instance,= it is unclear to me whether dynamic congestion data as exposed by conex is= robust enough for triggering handovers. This would really benefit from som= e real-world data. Congestion-aware routing does not come without risk, imh= o. Thanks Michael= From mattmathis@google.com Thu Aug 2 09:59:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D53521E80E2 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:59:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1eJlTSAyzBV for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746EA21E80DA for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by weyu54 with SMTP id u54so6834395wey.31 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-system-of-record; bh=mpCP2vyQgN1RmK09Z/9M72ccPVy04FSbN47PSDOsHz8=; b=VnHJvaYt9UHuBd4hb6mPfUHsGyShQTMa8zMBb6D52zjMeLL1p5WiwdoyIz81fH5z65 W/KnJLAlJiFjQClZ72Y7L37c4tPmGJHBIVaBgux97e+keWkmfnia3CgpvVhxH0OTYebE QUsmiAGUX9uVxXji2n+CzryMAB4llXG8nhG0eWdXD2sYw8N46gpkoTaEOUGuoaCuYx+X BshVfaIJqA4tqV0cONCPECDD5sRpLf26YS37F2hY52gYW2FGMV2u5c+nTjEefgrFzf9b uIRmVPprLh/7dhUtYMq1wknih8PRDKMsuCtHHIQf1e7SKRGkbKJ+RxfncFsrDvt/aWip 3O0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=mpCP2vyQgN1RmK09Z/9M72ccPVy04FSbN47PSDOsHz8=; b=mdW1cf1IBLbwiXcOjW80EBLrljS4DQr6d4BajIQNEgtuihJmRdGTFjLDVSOpCM1r0j EVLj+s3Q3xkHNMbHGAI4lKiObVzlfJf29ZRA6zz/jebX1VliUDr3jOteT31xYpIcX7mZ MO399AXL7D9svHvpALt4TNAMVLmMRng3NDMgVWXlf5Ga0Bo7CAytOpfRP7pL29eloPbb mV1BHQo0nr4jPDhJ471jw4RMuTZ27Qx2A60zBjASS/O0RsP6wFrSrkgzo9SgicJubcEC m2yvhhx5WAhZRLllf5qn8/Yr8ANnMGnB6ObGRQFv4Y2LlQ5nG+VO4AijSz6wzfqX3Y9D zlzA== Received: by 10.180.78.5 with SMTP id x5mr6219655wiw.13.1343926752582; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.78.5 with SMTP id x5mr6219626wiw.13.1343926752313; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.205.168 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:59:12 -0700 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: ConEx IETF list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkdbRexKup4vGf4/wiEfxxovoCSAGF01votm01Csf13AAMC4gkarfdUfF2f6v4+wif9XQtnlBXqlA3p+K5nhCs10rzHCzh5OBKzhJLNsGIuY1QVXFx6BW2FXMRzx3XwG45yW7P3Ldhqf8X6/VSMaRL07/Cha5BYqFx8DLAMwJMLv7CmP/c= Subject: [conex] My notes on abstract audit X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:59:14 -0000 The URL below points to a document (in Google docs) that describes a framework for exploring the audit design space. The intent is to get all of the issues on the table such that we can explore the tradeoffs between various aspects of the problem. The doc isn't done, but I don't have any time for it in the near future. This document is publicly visible and has public comment permission. Comment by highlighting a passage and right clicking (control-click?) to get a menu and select comment. If people are interested in editing, I can turn on write permissions. Example ConEx credit and audit algorithms - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bwGKLGEcleHy2LvnfVFWIX_Qc3ZioDf1EpzgBujLm1g/edit Thanks, --MM--