CONEX BoF. Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IETF Calsify.
Advertisements

MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #7 27 th July 2011 Quebec, IETF-81 Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
CONEX BoF. Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well MORE INFO: -ECN.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #5 Nov 8 th & 10 th 2010 Beijing, ietf-79 Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
Transport Layer Security (TLS) IETF-76 Chairs Joe Salowey Eric Rescorla
STRAW IETF#91, Honolulu, USA. Victor Pascual Christer Holmberg.
STRAW IETF#84, Vancouver, Canada Victor Pascual Christer Holmberg.
MPTCP – Multipath TCP WG Meeting Honolulu, IETF-91, 14th Nov 2014 Philip Eardley Yoshifumi Nishida 1.
L2VPN WG “NVO3” Meeting IETF 82 Taipei, Taiwan. Agenda Administrivia Framing Today’s Discussions (5 minutes) Cloud Networking: Framework and VPN Applicability.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
PPSP Working Group IETF-89 London, UK 16:10-18:40, Tuesday, Webex: participation.html.
RTCWEB WG Chairs: Cullen Jennings – Cisco Magnus Westerlund – Ericsson Ted Hardie – Google.
CCAMP Working Group Online Agenda and Slides at: Tools start page:
IETF 90: NetExt WG Meeting. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet- Draft.
MPTCP – Multipath TCP WG Meeting Toronto, IETF-90, 21 st July 2014 Philip Eardley Yoshifumi Nishida 1.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP Interim meeting #3 20 th October 2011 audio Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
SIPCLF Working Group Spencer Dawkins Theo Zourzouvillys IETF 76 – November 2009 Hiroshima, Japan.
Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) IETF 91, 10-Nov-2014 Honolulu, Hawai’i, US Benson Schliesser Matthew.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Marc Linsner Roger Marshall IETF 87 Berlin July 29, 2013.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Marc Linsner Roger Marshall IETF 84 Vancouver July 31, 2012.
IETF #82 DRINKS WG Meeting Taipei, Taiwan Fri, Nov 18 th
EAP Method Update (EMU) IETF-79 Chairs Joe Salowey Alan DeKok.
1 NOTE WELL Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
GROW IETF 78 Maastricht, Netherlands. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft.
Authority To Citizen Alerts IETF 81 Quebec. Note: Note Well the Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all.
IETF 86 PIM wg meeting. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC.
IPPM WG IETF 79. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and.
Tictoc working group Thursday, 28 July – 1720 EDT (1920 – 2120 UTC) Karen O’Donoghue and Yaakov Stein, co-chairs.
Technical Plenary Agenda IETF 81 Quebec City, Quebec July 25, 2011 Presentations: Jabber room:
SIPREC WG, IETF# , GMT+2 John Elwell (WG co-chair) Brian Rosen (WG co-chair)
CCAMP Working Group Online Agenda and Slides at: Data tracker:
Web Authorization Protocol (oauth) IETF 90, Toronto Chairs: Hannes Tschofenig, Derek Atkins Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty Mailing List:
Web Authorization Protocol (oauth) Hannes Tschofenig.
Transport Service (TAPS) Aaron Falk
Service Function Chaining (SFC) IETF 89 London WG Chairs: Jim Guichard Thomas Narten
Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environment (ACE) WG Chairs: Kepeng Li, Hannes
IETF 89, LONDON, UK LISP Working Group. 2 Agenda and slides:  lisp.html Audio Stream 
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #1 Nov 9 th, 2009 Hiroshima, ietf-76.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #5 Nov 8 th & 10 th 2010 Beijing, ietf-79 Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
DMM WG IETF 84 DMM WG Agenda & Status Tuesday, July 31 st, 2012 Jouni Korhonen, Julien Laganier.
LMAP WG IETF 92, Dallas, TX Dan Romascanu Jason Weil.
March 2008IETF KMART BoF1 KMART BOF Key Management for Routing Co-Chairs: Acee Lindem Donald Eastlake 3rd
Transport Layer Security (TLS) IETF-84 Chairs: Eric Rescorla Joe Salowey.
Interface to the Routing System (IRS) BOF IETF 85, Atlanta November 2012.
IPR WG IETF 62 Minneapolis. IPR WG: Administrivia Blue sheets Scribes Use the microphones Note Well.
IETF #81 - NETCONF WG session 1 NETCONF WG IETF 81, Quebec City, Canada MONDAY, July 25, Bert Wijnen Mehmet Ersue.
Transport Layer Security (TLS) IETF 73 Thursday, November Chairs: Eric Rescorla Joe Salowey.
IETF #73 - NETMOD WG session1 NETMOD WG IETF 73, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 20, David Harrington David Partain.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting Tuesday 23 rd & Friday 26 th March 2010 Anaheim, ietf-77.
Transport Layer Security (TLS) IETF-78 Chairs Joe Salowey Eric Rescorla
HIP WG Gonzalo Camarillo David Ward IETF 80, Prague, Czech Republic THURSDAY, March 31, 2011, Barcelona/Berlin.
OPSREA Open Meeting Area Directors: Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica Monday, March 28, 2011 Morning Session, 10:30 – 11:30, Room Barcelona/Berlin Discussion.
Agenda Behcet Sarikaya Dirk von Hugo November 2012 FMC BOF IETF
MODERN BoF Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering telephone Numbers IETF 92.
IETF #82 - NETCONF WG session 1 NETCONF WG IETF 82, Taipei, Taiwan TUESDAY, November 15, Afternoon Session III Bert Wijnen Mehmet Ersue.
Agenda Stig Venaas Behcet Sarikaya November 2011 Multimob WG IETF
Alternatives to Content Classification for Operator Resource Deployment (ACCORD) BOF Chairs: Gonzalo Camarillo & Pete Resnick.
TSVAREA IETF84 - Vancouver. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft.
OPSAWG chairs: Scott Bradner Christopher Liljenstolpe.
STIR Secure Telephone Identity Revisited
NOTE WELL Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
CONEX BoF.
MODERN Working Group IETF 97 November 14, 2016.
BIER WG The Brewery IETF 98
IETF DTN Working Group July 17th, 2017 Chairs:
SIPREC WG, Interim virtual meeting , GMT
SIPBRANDY Chair Slides
Scott Bradner & Martin Thomson
Presentation transcript:

CONEX BoF

Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well

Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: * The IETF plenary session * The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG * Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices * Any IETF working group or portion thereof * The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB * The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879). Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details. A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements. A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public.

Agenda Administrivia [ 5 mins] Introduction by chairs [ 5 mins] Background –The problem [50 mins] end-user perspective [Murari Sridharan] context/motivation [Rich Woundy] technical problem [Mark Handley] Towards a solution [20 mins] –Overview of re-ECN [Bob Briscoe] Discussion of potential IETF work –Constraints [10 mins] [Philip Eardley] –Discussion of viability of congestion exposure [40 mins] [Leslie Daigle] –Draft charter discussion [20 mins] –Questions and hums [10 mins] After close of BoF meeting -- Bar BoF of demonstrations [TBC] MORE INFO:

Some Background This is proposing new work at the IETF – but it’s not new –Bar BoF in Hiroshima ECNBarBoFMinutes GIIC – high level industry workshop on fairness in capacity sharing Agenda-Final.pdf

Draft Charter Discussion

CONEX WG The purpose of the CONEX working group is to develop a mechanism to allow senders to inform the network of the level of congestion they expect their packets to encounter. This information is currently only visible at the transport layer. With the output of CONEX, it will be possible to provide sufficient information in each IP datagram so that any node in the network can see the expected rest-of-path congestion. Once any node can see the impact it causes (and suffers) by sending or forwarding packets, it will be possible to hold senders and whole networks accountable for the congestion they cause downstream. Tools that exploit the CONEX output could be used for mitigating distributed denial of service (DDoS); simplifying differentiation of quality of service (QoS); policing compliance to congestion control; and so on.

Output of the CONEX WG will include… An applicability statement -- the specific cases in which CONEX is useful, especially in different network conditions, incremental deployment considerations, etc Specification of IP (v4 and v6) packet structure to encapsulate congestion exposure information (header bits, interpretation) Use cases -- possible uses of the CONEX information to reduce congestion and/or increase accountability for it -- for illustration purposes only Specification of necessary CONEX features in TCP, for example to carry congestion information from receiver to sender Analysis of security threats from falsifying or suppressing CONEX information Future work may include specifications to implement one or more use cases, but that is out of scope initially.

Milestones Feb 2010 Draft applicability statement (-00) Mar 2010 Evaluation of candidate protocol approaches Apr 2010 Determination of protocol approach May 2010 Draft use cases (-00) Jun 2010 Revised applicability statement Jun 2010 Draft CONEX IPv4 specification (-00) Jun 2010 Draft CONEX IPv6 specification (-00) Aug 2010 Draft security threats document (-00) Dec 2010 Revised CONEX IPv4 specification Dec 2010 Revised CONEX IPv6 specification Jan 2011 Revised security threats document Jan 2011 Revised use cases

Issues from the list Do we need an applicability statement document? Handling other-than-TCP –Add specification of “how to” for other transports? “Vision” document for potential long term architecture impact?