[e2e] traffic dispersion and blocking probality

Jing Shen jshen at cad.zju.edu.cn
Tue Apr 2 03:32:14 PST 2002

In deed, I think ECN++ is a good idea.  But  as you proposed , unipath routing is the primary solution for traffic delivery,
  MPR is used for congestion .  This can be done but  why not directly MPR ? An other quesion is,
if we rely on an server/controller to route around congestion spot, what if the out-of-date  link  state info cause
different views over the network ?

If we could predict the congestion possibility for sending flow to a path , we can integrate such mechanism in TCP window control besides
implementing with MPR.  I know this is really hard before we find invarant part of network traffic.

Thanks a lot!

Best regards

> ok - here is a practical proposal
> called ECN++
> ECN is a mechanism for a bottleneck to give explicit, but also
> early congestion notification - it is early for two reasons
> 1/ it arrives at the receiver as a mark in an IP packet that went thru
> a bottleneck (a queueing device on the current IP path which had
> incipient congestion) - this means it is as fast as a packet, ratehr
> than an RTT estimate and timeout....
> 2/ it typically is implemented via RED rather than tail queue marking,
> and increasingly, researchers advise using virtual queues, which give
> good responsiveness....
> ECN++ records the position of the bottleneck in the packet - there are
> several ways that this could be done
> i) route record (problem with option space and with MTU of packet)
> ii) hash the packet header (in the same way as DDOS traceback) and
> keep it til you see an ACK packet flow the other way
> (multicast tbd later, though this would work ok for pgmcc)
> then when the receiver gets a packet with ECN, it sources a pure ack
> (change to TCP) which _always has space for a route record_, so then
> the congested router tags the ack with  its ip address - problem:
> paths are assymetric; although often, bottlenckeszx are at edges, so
> this aint a problem; except if bottlenckes are at edges, alternate
> paths and dispersive routign arent really relevant - oh well)
> iii) record the ttl of the packet in the ECN marked packet somewhere
> (e.g. assume (probably ok, ) that all ECN++ capable end systems do MTU
> discivery, so we can (yet again) overload the fragment fields:-)
> then the source can distribute this information to nearby Congestion
> Managers (see work of Hari Balakrishnan et al) who can implement an
> overlay of application layer routers (see RON in previous email),
> and route around where the congestion was seen....by running traceroutes
> to each other and discovering who shares bottlenecks indicated in the ECN++
> above....and then implementing tunnels...
> tunnel/CM servers can use a shortest widest multipath routing, and select the
> n-th shortest, lesst congested routes - or even do
> best bandwidth+lowest delay + least congested:
> there are now some very good
> fast polynomial approximation algorithsm for doing this to good
> accuract in very double quick time....so we can do multiple additive
> metrics even here if we like (after all the congestion estimat is only
> an approximation anyhow)...see any good operations research journal in
> last 3 years for recent advances here
> ok?
> should keep a couple of PhD's busy for a couple of years...
> some problems:
>         - stability
>         - economics (shadow price)
>         - partial deployment
>         - security (ISPs HATE giving out info on who is worse provisioned
>         etc etc)
> Jing Shen
> **********************************************************************
> * The SunShine of life is made up of very little beams which is      *
> *  bright all the time                                               *
> **********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20020402/90f7c0ad/attachment.html

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list