ConEx                                                    B. Briscoe, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                        BT
Intended status: Informational                            R. Woundy, Ed.
Expires: September 3, 2012                                       Comcast
                                                          A. Cooper, Ed.
                                                           March 2, 2012

                      ConEx Concepts and Use Cases


   This document provides the entry point to the set of documentation
   about the Congestion Exposure (ConEx) protocol.  It explains the
   motivation for including a ConEx marking at the IP layer: to expose
   information about congestion to network nodes.  Although such
   information may have a number of uses, this document focuses on how
   the information communicated by the ConEx marking can serve as the
   basis for significantly more efficient and effective traffic
   management than what exists on the Internet today.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Congestion-Volume  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Rest-of-Path Congestion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Core Use Case: Informing Traffic Management  . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Additional Benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Comparison with Existing Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Other Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Deployment Arrangements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

1.  Introduction

   The power of Internet technology comes from multiplexing shared
   capacity with packets rather than circuits.  Network operators aim to
   provide sufficient shared capacity, but when too much packet load
   meets too little shared capacity, congestion results.  Congestion
   appears as either increased delay, dropped packets or packets
   explicitly marked with Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   markings [RFC3168].  As described in Figure 1, congestion control
   currently relies on the transport receiver detecting these
   'Congestion Signals' and informing the transport sender in
   'Congestion Feedback Signals.'  The sender is then expected to reduce
   its rate in response.

   This document provides the entry point to the set of documentation
   about the Congestion Exposure (ConEx) protocol.  It focuses on the
   motivation for including a ConEx marking at the IP layer.  (A
   companion document, [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech], focuses on the
   mechanics of the protocol.)  Briefly, the idea is for the sender to
   continually signal expected congestion in the headers of any data it
   sends.  To a first approximation, the sender does this by relaying
   the 'Congestion Feedback Signals' back into the IP layer.  They then
   travel unchanged across the network to the receiver (shown as 'IP-
   Layer-ConEx-Signals' in Figure 1).  This enables IP layer devices on
   the path to see information about the whole path congestion.

   ,---------.                                               ,---------.
   |Transport|                                               |Transport|
   | Sender  |   .                                           |Receiver |
   |         |  /|___________________________________________|         |
   |     ,-<---------------Congestion-Feedback-Signals--<--------.     |
   |     |   |/                                              |   |     |
   |     |   |\           Transport Layer Feedback Flow      |   |     |
   |     |   | \  ___________________________________________|   |     |
   |     |   |  \|                                           |   |     |
   |     |   |   '         ,-----------.               .     |   |     |
   |     |   |_____________|           |_______________|\    |   |     |
   |     |   |    IP Layer |           |  Data Flow      \   |   |     |
   |     |   |             |(Congested)|                  \  |   |     |
   |     |   |             |  Network  |--Congestion-Signals--->-'     |
   |     |   |             |  Device   |                    \|         |
   |     |   |             |           |                    /|         |
   |     `----------->--(new)-IP-Layer-ConEx-Signals-------->|         |
   |         |             |           |                  /  |         |
   |         |_____________|           |_______________  /   |         |
   |         |             |           |               |/    |         |
   `---------'             `-----------'               '     `---------'

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

         Figure 1: The ConEx Protocol in the Internet Architecture

   One of the key benefits of exposing this congestion information at
   the IP layer is that it makes the information available to network
   operators for use as input into their traffic management procedures.
   As shown in Figure 1, a ConEx-enabled sender signals whole path
   congestion, which is (approximately) the congestion one round trip
   time earlier as reported by the receiver to the sender.  The ConEx
   signal is a mark in the IP header that is easy for any IP device to
   read.  Therefore a node performing traffic management can count
   congestion as easily as it might count data volume today by simply
   counting the volume of packets with ConEx markings.

   ConEx-based traffic management can make highly efficient use of
   capacity.  In times of no congestion, all traffic management
   restraints can be removed, leaving the network's full capacity
   available to all its users.  If some users on the network cause
   disproportionate congestion, the traffic management function can
   learn about this and directly limit those users' traffic in order to
   protect the service of other users sharing the same capacity.  ConEx-
   based traffic management thus presents a step change in terms of the
   options available to network operators for managing traffic on their

   The remainder of this document explains the concepts behind ConEx and
   how exposing congestion can significantly improve Internet traffic
   management, among other benefits.  Section 2 introduces a number of
   concepts that are fundamental to understanding how ConEx-based
   traffic management works.  Section 3 shows how ConEx can be used for
   traffic management, discusses additional benefits from such usage,
   and compares ConEx-based traffic management to existing traffic
   management approaches.  Section 4 discusses other related use cases.
   Section 5 briefly discusses deployment arrangements.  The final
   sections are standard RFC back matter.

2.  Concepts

   ConEx relies on a precise definition of congestion and a number of
   newer concepts that are introduced and defined in this section.

2.1.  Congestion

   Despite its central role in network control and management,
   congestion is a remarkably difficult concept to define.  Experts in
   different disciplines and with different perspectives define
   congestion in a variety of ways [Bauer09].

   The definition used for the purposes of ConEx is expressed as the

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   probability of packet loss (or the probability of packet marking if
   ECN is in use).  This definition focuses on how congestion is
   measured, rather than describing congestion as a condition or state.

2.2.  Congestion-Volume

   The metric that ConEx exposes is congestion-volume: the volume of
   bytes dropped or ECN-marked in a given period of time.  Counting
   congestion-volume allows each user to be held responsible for his or
   her contribution to causing congestion.  Congestion-volume is a
   property of traffic, whereas congestion describes a link or a path.

   To understand congestion-volume, consider a simple example.  Imagine
   Alice sends 1GB while the loss-probability is a constant 0.2%.  Her
   contribution to congestion -- her congestion-volume -- is 1GB x 0.2%
   = 2MB.  If she then sends 3GB while the loss-probability is 0.1%,
   this adds 3MB to her congestion-volume.  Her total contribution to
   congestion is then 2MB+3MB = 5MB.

   Fortunately, measuring Alice's congestion-volume on a real network
   does not require the kind of arithmetic shown above because
   congestion-volume can be directly measured by counting the total
   volume of Alice's traffic that gets discarded or ECN-marked.  (A
   queue with a percentage loss involves multiplication inherently.)

2.3.  Rest-of-Path Congestion

   At a particular measurement point within a network, "rest-of-path
   congestion" (also known as "downstream congestion") is the level of
   congestion that a traffic flow is expected to experience between the
   measurement point and its final destination.  "Upstream congestion"
   is the congestion experienced up to the measurement point.

   Measurement points that only observe ECN marks are capable of
   measuring upstream congestion, whereas measurement points that
   observe ConEx marks in addition to ECN marks can use both kinds of
   marks to calculate rest-of-path congestion.  When ECN signals are
   monitored in the middle of a network, they indicate the congestion
   experienced so far on the path (upstream congestion).  In contrast,
   the ConEx signals inserted into IP headers as shown in Figure 1
   indicate the congestion along a whole path from source to
   destination.  Therefore if a measurement point detects both of these
   signals, it can subtract the level of ECN (upstream congestion) from
   the level of ConEx (whole path) to derive a measure of the congestion
   that packets are likely to experience between the monitoring point
   and their destination (rest-of-path congestion).

   [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech] has further discussion of the

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   constraints around the network's ability to measure rest-of-path

2.4.  Definitions

   Congestion:  In general, congestion occurs when any user's traffic
      suffers loss, ECN marking, or increased delay as a result of one
      or more network resources becoming overloaded.  For the purposes
      of ConEx, congestion is measured using the concrete signals
      provided by loss and ECN markings (delay is not considered).
      Congestion is measured as the probability of loss or the
      probability of ECN marking, usually expressed as a dimensionless

   Congestion-volume:  For any granularity of traffic (packet, flow,
      aggregate, link, etc.), the volume of bytes dropped or ECN-marked
      in a given period of time.  Conceptually, data volume multiplied
      by the congestion each packet of the volume experienced.  Usually
      expressed in bytes (or MB or GB).

   Congestion policer:  A logical entity that allows a network operator
      to monitor each user's congestion-volume and enforce congestion-
      volume limits (discussed in Section 3.1).

   Rest-of-path congestion (or downstream congestion):  The congestion a
      flow of traffic is expected to experience on the remainder of its
      path.  In other words, at a measurement point in the network the
      rest-of-path congestion is the congestion the traffic flow has yet
      to experience as it travels from that point to the receiver.

   Upstream congestion:  The accumulated congestion experienced by a
      traffic flow thus far, relative to a point along its path.  In
      other words, at a measurement point in the network the upstream
      congestion is the accumulated congestion the traffic flow has
      experienced as it travels from the sender to that point.  At the
      receiver this is equivalent to the end-to-end congestion level
      that (usually) is reported back to the sender.

   Network operators (or providers):  Operator of a residential,
      commercial, enterprise, campus or other network.

   User:  The contractual entity that represents an individual,
      household, business, or institution that uses the service of a
      network operator.  There is no implication that the contract has
      to be commercial; for instance, the users of a university or
      enterprise network service could be students or employees who do
      not pay for access but may be required to comply with some form of
      contract or acceptable use policy.  There is also no implication

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

      that every user is an end user.  Where two networks form a
      customer-provider relationship, the term user applies to the
      customer network.

   [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech] gives further definitions for aspects
   of ConEx related to protocol mechanisms.

3.  Core Use Case: Informing Traffic Management

   This section explains how ConEx could be used as the basis for
   traffic management, highlights additional benefits derived from
   having ConEx-aware nodes on the network, and compares ConEx-based
   traffic management to existing approaches.

3.1.  Use Case Description

   One of the key benefits that ConEx can deliver is in helping network
   operators to improve how they manage traffic on their networks.
   Consider the common case of a commercial broadband network where a
   relatively small number of users place disproportionate demand on
   network resources, at times resulting in congestion.  The network
   operator seeks a way to manage traffic such that the traffic that
   contributes more to congestion bears more of the brunt of the

   Assuming ConEx signals are visible at the IP layer, the network
   operator can accomplish this by placing a congestion policer at an
   enforcement point within the network and configuring it with a
   traffic management policy that monitors each user's contribution to
   congestion.  As described in [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech] and
   elaborated in [CongPol], one way to implement a congestion policer is
   in a similar way to a bit-rate policer, except that it monitors and
   polices congestion-volume rather than bit-rate.  When implemented as
   a token bucket, the tokens provide users with the right to cause bits
   of congestion-volume, rather than to send bits of data volume.  The
   fill rate represents each user's congestion-volume quota.

   The congestion policer monitors the ConEx signals of the traffic
   entering the network.  As long as the network remains uncongested and
   users stay within their quotas, no action is taken.  When the network
   becomes congested and a user exhausts his quota, some action is taken
   against the traffic that breached the quota in accordance with the
   network operator's traffic management policy.  For example, the
   traffic may be dropped, delayed, or marked with a lower QoS class.
   In this way, traffic is managed according to its contribution to
   congestion -- not some application- or flow-specific policy -- and is
   not managed at all during times of no congestion.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   As an example of how a network operator might employ a ConEx-based
   traffic management system, consider a typical DSL network
   architecture (as elaborated in [TR-059] and [TR-101]).  Traffic is
   routed from regional and global IP networks to an operator-controlled
   IP node, the Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS).  From the BRAS,
   traffic is delivered to access nodes.  The BRAS carries enhanced
   functionality including IP QoS and traffic management capabilities.

   Based on typical network designs and current traffic patterns, the
   BRAS is located at a point in the network where congestion may be
   most likely to occur.  As a consequence, the BRAS is a logical choice
   of location for deploying traffic management functionality.  By
   deploying a congestion policer at the BRAS location, the network
   operator can measure the congestion-volume created by users within
   the access nodes and police misbehaving users before their traffic
   affects others on the access network.  The policer would be
   provisioned with a traffic management policy, perhaps directing the
   BRAS to drop packets from users that exceed their congestion-volume
   quotas during times of congestion.  Those users would be likely to
   react in the typical way to drops, backing off (assuming use of
   standard TCP), and thereby lowering their congestion-volumes back
   within the quota limits.

3.2.  Additional Benefits

   The ConEx-based approach to traffic management has a number of
   benefits in addition to efficient management of traffic.  It provides
   incentives for users to make use of scavenger transport protocols,
   such as [I-D.ietf-ledbat-congestion], that provide ways for bulk-
   transfer applications to rapidly yield when interactive applications
   require capacity.  With a congestion policer in place as described in
   Section 3.1, users of these protocols will be less likely to run
   afoul of the network operator's traffic management policy than those
   whose bulk-transfer applications generate the same volume of traffic
   without being sensitive to congestion.

   ConEx-based traffic management also makes it possible for a user to
   control the relative performance among its own traffic flows.  If a
   user wants some flows to have more bandwidth than others, it can
   allow the higher bandwidth traffic to generate more congestion
   signals, leaving less congestion "budget" for the user to "spend" on
   other traffic.  This approach is most relevant if congestion is
   signalled by ECN, because no impairment due to loss is involved and
   delay can remain low.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

3.3.  Comparison with Existing Approaches

   A variety of approaches already exist for network operators to manage
   congestion, traffic, and the disproportionate usage of scarce
   capacity by a small number of users.  Common approaches can be
   categorized as rate-based, volume-based, or application-based.

   Rate-based approaches constrain the traffic rate per user or per
   network.  A user's peak and average (or "committed") rate may be
   limited.  These approaches have the potential to either over- or
   under-constrain the network, suppressing rates even when the network
   is uncongested or not suppressing them enough during heavy usage

   Round-robin scheduling and fair queuing were developed to address
   these problems.  They equalize relative rates between active users
   (or flows) at a known bottleneck.  The bit-rate allocated to any one
   user depends on the number of active users at each instant.  The
   drawback of these approaches is that they favor heavy users over
   light users over time, because they do not have any memory of usage.
   Heavy users will be active at every instant whereas light users will
   only occupy their share of the link occassionally, but bit-rate is
   shared instant by instant.

   Volume-based approaches measure the overall volume of traffic a user
   sends (and/or receives) over time.  Users may be subject to an
   absolute volume cap (for example, 10GB per month) or the "heaviest"
   users may be sanctioned in some other manner.  Many providers use
   monthly volume limits and count volume regardless of whether the
   network is congested or not, creating the potential for over- or
   under-constraining problems, as with the original rate-based

   ConEx-based approaches, by comparison, only react during times of
   congestion and in proportion to each user's congestion contribution,
   making more efficient use of capacity and more proportionate
   management decisions.

   Unlike ConEx-based approaches, neither rate-based nor volume-based
   approaches provide incentives for applications to use scavenger
   transports.  They may even penalize users of applications that employ
   scavenger services for the large amount of volume they send, rather
   than rewarding them for carefully avoiding congestion while sending
   it.  While the volume-based approach described in Comcast's Protocol-
   Agnostic Congestion Management System [RFC6057] aims to overcome the
   over/under-constraining problem by only measuring volume and
   triggering traffic management action during periods of high
   utilization, it still does not provide incentives to use scavenger

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   transports because congestion-causing volume cannot be distinguished
   from volume overall.  ConEx provides this ability.

   Application-based approaches use deep packet inspection or other
   techniques to determine what application a given traffic flow is
   associated with.  Network operators may then use this information to
   rate-limit or otherwise sanction certain applications, in some cases
   only during peak hours.  These approaches suffer from being at odds
   with IPSec and some application-layer encryption, and they may raise
   additional policy concerns.  In contrast, ConEx offers an
   application-agnostic metric to serve as the basis for traffic
   management decisions.

   The existing types of approaches share a further limitation that
   ConEx can help to overcome: performance uncertainty.  Flat-rate
   pricing plans are popular because users appreciate the certainty of
   having their monthly bill amount remain the same for each billing
   period, allowing them to plan their costs accordingly.  But while
   flat-rate pricing avoids billing uncertainty, it creates performance
   uncertainty: users cannot know whether the performance of their
   connections is being altered or degraded based on how the network
   operator is attempting to manage congestion.  By exposing congestion
   information at the IP layer, ConEx instead provides a metric that can
   serve as an open, transparent basis for traffic management policies
   that both providers and their customers can measure and verify.  It
   can be used to reduce the performance uncertainty that some users
   currently experience.

4.  Other Use Cases

   ConEx information can be put to a number of uses other than informing
   traffic management.  These include:

   Informing inter-operator contracts:  ConEx information is made
      visible to every IP node, including border nodes between networks.
      Network operators can use this information to measure how much
      traffic from each network contributes to congestion in the other.
      As such, congestion-volume could be included as a metric in inter-
      operator contracts, just as volume or bit-rate are included today.

   Enabling more efficient capacity provisioning:  Section 3.2 explained
      how operators can use ConEx-based traffic management to encourage
      use of scavenger transports, which significantly improves the
      performance of interactive applications while still allowing heavy
      users to transfer high volumes.  Here we explain how this can also
      benefit network operators.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

      Today, when loss, delay or averaged utilization exceeds a certain
      threshold, some operators just buy more capacity without
      attempting to manage the traffic.  Other operators prefer to limit
      a minority of heavy users at peak times, but they still eventually
      buy more capacity when utilization rises.

      With ConEx-based traffic management, a network operator should be
      able to provision capacity more efficiently.  An operator could
      benefit from this in a variety of ways.  For example, the operator
      could add capacity as it would do without ConEx, but deliver
      better quality of service for its users.  Or the operator could
      delay adding capacity while delivering similar quality of service
      to what it currently provides.

5.  Deployment Arrangements

   ConEx is designed so that it can be incrementally deployed in the
   Internet and still be valuable for early adopters.  As long as some
   senders are ConEx-enabled, a network on the path can unilaterally use
   ConEx-aware policy devices for traffic management; no changes to
   network forwarding elements are needed and ConEx still works if there
   are other networks on the path that are unaware of ConEx marks.

   The above two steps seem to represent a stand-off where neither step
   is useful until the other has made the first move: i) some sending
   hosts must be modifed to give information to the network and ii) a
   network must deploy policy devices to monitor this information and
   act on it.  Nonetheless, the developer of a scavenger transport
   protocol like LEDBAT does stand to benefit from deploying ConEx.  In
   this case the developer makes the first move, expecting it will
   prompt at least some networks to move in response, using the ConEx
   information to reward users of the scavenger protocol.

   On the host side, we have already shown (Figure Figure 1) how the
   sender piggy-backs ConEx signals on normal data packets to re-insert
   feedback about packet drops (and/or ECN) back into the IP layer.  In
   the case of TCP, [I-D.kuehlewind-conex-tcp-modifications] proposes
   the required sender modifications.  ConEx works with any TCP receiver
   as long as it uses SACK, which most do.  There is a receiver
   optimisation [I-D.kuehlewind-conex-accurate-ecn] that improves ConEx
   precision when using ECN, but ConEx can still use ECN without it.

   On the network side the provider solely needs to place ConEx
   congestion policers at each ingress to its network, in a similar
   arrangement to the edge-policed architecture of Diffserv [RFC2475].

   A sender can choose whether to send ConEx or Not-ConEx packets.
   ConEx packets bring information to the policer about congestion

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   expected on the rest of the path beyond the policer.  Not-ConEx
   packets bring no such information.  Therefore the network will tend
   to rate-limit not-ConEx packets conservatively in order to manage the
   unknown risk of congestion.  In contrast, a network doesn't normally
   need to rate-limit ConEx-enabled packets unless they reveal a
   persistently high contribution to congestion.  This natural tendency
   for networks to favour senders that provide ConEx information
   reinforces ConEx deployment.

   The above gives only the most salient aspects of ConEx deployment.
   For further detail, [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech] describes the
   incremental deployment features of the ConEx protocol and the
   components that need to be deployed for ConEx to work.  Then
   [I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy] gives concrete examples of
   feasible initial deployment scenarios.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not specify a mechanism, it merely motivates
   congestion exposure at the IP layer.  Therefore security
   considerations are described in the companion document that gives an
   abstract description of the ConEx protocol and the components that
   would use it [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech].

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by IANA.

8.  Acknowledgments

   Bob Briscoe was partly funded by Trilogy, a research project (ICT-
   216372) supported by the European Community under its Seventh
   Framework Programme.  The views expressed here are those of the
   author only.

   The authors would like to thank the many people that have commented
   on this document: Bernard Aboba, Mikael Abrahamsson, Joao Taveira
   Araujo, Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Steve Bauer, Caitlin Bestler, Steven
   Blake, Louise Burness, Ken Carlberg, Nandita Dukkipati, Dave McDysan,
   Wes Eddy, Matthew Ford, Ingemar Johansson, Georgios Karagiannis,
   Mirja Kuehlewind, Dirk Kutscher, Zhu Lei, Kevin Mason, Matt Mathis,
   Michael Menth, Chris Morrow, Tim Shepard, Hannes Tschofenig and
   Stuart Venters.  Please accept our apologies if your name has been
   missed off this list.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

8.1.  Contributors

   Philip Eardley and Andrea Soppera made helpful text contributions to
   this document.

   The following co-edited this document through most of its life:

      Toby Moncaster
      Computer Laboratory
      William Gates Building
      JJ Thomson Avenue
      Cambridge, CB3 0FD

      John Leslie
      10 Souhegan Street
      Milford, NH  03055

9.  Informative References

   [Bauer09]                                 Bauer, S., Clark, D., and
                                             W. Lehr, "The Evolution of
                                             Internet Congestion", 2009.

   [CongPol]                                 Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A.,
                                             and T. Moncaster, "Policing
                                             Freedom to Use the Internet
                                             Resource Pool", RE-Arch
                                             2008 hosted at the 2008
                                             CoNEXT conference ,
                                             December 2008.

   [I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy]        Briscoe, B., "Initial
                                             Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
                                             Deployment Examples", draft
                                             deploy-01 (work in
                                             progress), November 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech]            Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe,
                                             "Congestion Exposure
                                             (ConEx) Concepts and
                                             Abstract Mechanism", draft-

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

                                             (work in progress),
                                             October 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ledbat-congestion]              Hazel, G., Iyengar, J.,
                                             Kuehlewind, M., and S.
                                             Shalunov, "Low Extra Delay
                                             Background Transport
                                             (LEDBAT)", draft-ietf-
                                             ledbat-congestion-09 (work
                                             in progress), October 2011.

   [I-D.kuehlewind-conex-accurate-ecn]       Kuehlewind, M. and R.
                                             Scheffenegger, "Accurate
                                             ECN Feedback in TCP", draft
                                             ecn-01 (work in progress),
                                             October 2011.

   [I-D.kuehlewind-conex-tcp-modifications]  Kuehlewind, M. and R.
                                             Scheffenegger, "TCP
                                             modifications for
                                             Congestion Exposure", draft
                                             modifications-01 (work in
                                             progress), October 2011.

   [RFC2475]                                 Blake, S., Black, D.,
                                             Carlson, M., Davies, E.,
                                             Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An
                                             Architecture for
                                             Differentiated Services",
                                             RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC3168]                                 Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd,
                                             S., and D. Black, "The
                                             Addition of Explicit
                                             Congestion Notification
                                             (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
                                             September 2001.

   [RFC6057]                                 Bastian, C., Klieber, T.,
                                             Livingood, J., Mills, J.,
                                             and R. Woundy, "Comcast's
                                             Congestion Management
                                             System", RFC 6057,
                                             December 2010.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         ConEx Concepts & Use Cases             March 2012

   [TR-059]                                  Anschutz, T., Ed., "DSL
                                             Forum Technical Report TR-
                                             059: Requirements for the
                                             Support of QoS-Enabled IP
                                             Services", September 2003.

   [TR-101]                                  Cohen, A., Ed. and E.
                                             Schrum, Ed., "DSL Forum
                                             Technical Report TR-101:
                                             Migration to Ethernet-Based
                                             DSL Aggregation",
                                             April 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Bob Briscoe (editor)
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE

   Phone: +44 1473 645196

   Richard Woundy (editor)
   1701 John F Kennedy Boulevard
   Philadelphia, PA  19103


   Alissa Cooper (editor)
   1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100
   Washington, DC  20006


Briscoe, et al.         Expires September 3, 2012              [Page 15]