Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Use Cases
RFC 6789
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (December 2012) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bob Briscoe , Richard Woundy , Alissa Cooper | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| IESG | Responsible AD | Wesley Eddy | |
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 6789
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Briscoe, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6789 BT
Category: Informational R. Woundy, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Comcast
A. Cooper, Ed.
CDT
December 2012
Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Use Cases
Abstract
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 document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6789.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Congestion-Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Rest-of-Path Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Core Use Case: Informing Traffic Management . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Additional Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Comparison with Existing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Other Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Deployment Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Experimental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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, [CONEX-ABS], 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-------->| |
| | | | / | |
| |_____________| |_______________ / | |
| | | | |/ | |
`---------' `-----------' ' `---------'
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.
A ConEx-enabled sender signals expected whole-path congestion, which
is approximately the congestion at least a round-trip time earlier as
reported by the receiver to the sender (Figure 1). 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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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
networks.
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. Section 6
suggests open issues that experiments in the use of ConEx could
usefully be designed to answer. The final sections are standard RFC
back matter.
The remainder of the core ConEx document suite consists of:
[CONEX-ABS], which provides an abstract encoding of ConEx signals,
explains the ConEx audit and security mechanisms, and describes
incremental deployment features;
[CONEX-DESTOPT], which specifies the IPv6 destination option
encoding for ConEx;
[TCP-MOD], which specifies TCP-sender modifications for use of
ConEx;
and the following documents, which describe some feasible
scenarios for deploying ConEx:
[CONEX-DEPLOY], which describes a scenario around a fixed
broadband access network;
[CONEX-MOBILE], which describes a scenario around a mobile
communications provider;
[CONEX-DATA], which describes how ConEx could be used for
performance isolation between tenants of a data centre.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
2. Concepts
ConEx relies on a precise definition of congestion and a number of
newer concepts that are introduced in this section. Definitions are
summarized in Section 2.4.
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
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 congestion. Congestion-volume can only be a
property of traffic, whereas congestion can be a property of traffic
or a property of a link or a path.
To understand congestion-volume, consider a simple example. Imagine
Alice sends 1 GB of a file while the loss-probability is a constant
0.2%. Her contribution to congestion -- her congestion-volume -- is
1 GB x 0.2% = 2 MB. If she then sends another 3 GB of the file while
the loss-probability is 0.1%, this adds 3 MB to her congestion-
volume. Her total contribution to congestion is then 2 MB + 3 MB = 5
MB.
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 varying percentage loss does these multiplications and
additions inherently.) With ConEx, network operators can count
congestion-volume using techniques very similar to those they use for
counting volume.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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.
If traffic is ECN-capable, ECN signals monitored in the middle of a
network will 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 transport source to transport 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). A measurement point can calculate this
measurement in the aggregate, across all flows.
A network monitor can usually accurately measure upstream congestion
only if the traffic it observes is ECN-capable. [CONEX-ABS] further
discusses the constraints around the network's ability to measure
upstream and rest-of-path congestion in these circumstances.
However, there are a number of initial deployment arrangements that
benefit from ConEx but work without ECN (see Section 5).
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
percentage.
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. This is
usually expressed in bytes (or kB, MB, etc.).
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).
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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 is usually expressed as a dimensionless
percentage.
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. This is usually
expressed as a dimensionless percentage.
Network operator (or provider): 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 that every user is an end user. Where two networks
form a customer-provider relationship, the term "user" applies to
the customer network.
[CONEX-ABS] 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
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
operator seeks a way to manage traffic such that the traffic that
contributes more to congestion bears more of the brunt of the
management.
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 [CONEX-ABS] 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 congestion-volume (based on
IP-layer ConEx signals) 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.
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.
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' apps would be likely
to react in the typical way to drops, backing off (assuming at least
some use TCP), and thereby lowering the users' congestion-volumes
back within the quota limits. If none of a user's apps responds, the
policer would continue to increase focused drops and effectively
enforce its own congestion control.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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 the Low Extra Delay Background Transport [LEDBAT], that
provide ways for bulk-transfer applications to rapidly yield when
interactive applications require capacity (thereby "scavenging"
remaining bandwidth). 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. In short,
two users who produce similar traffic volumes over the same time
interval may produce different congestion-volumes if one of them is
using a scavenger transport protocol and the other is not; in that
situation, the scavenger user's traffic is less likely to be managed
by the network operator.
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
reduce the rate of some traffic so that it consumes less congestion-
volume "budget", leaving more congestion-volume "budget" for the user
to "spend" on making other traffic go faster. This approach is most
relevant if congestion is signalled by ECN, because no impairment due
to loss is involved and delay can remain low.
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
periods.
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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
These approaches share bit rate instant by instant; however, heavy
users are active at every instant, whereas light users only occupy
their share of the link occasionally.
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
approaches.
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
transport protocols. They may even penalize users of applications
that employ scavenger transports 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 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
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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, without having to sacrifice their billing
certainty.
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 ConEx combined with ECN markings 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. This would not be an initial
deployment scenario, unless ECN became widely deployed.
Enabling more efficient capacity provisioning: Section 3.2 explains
how operators can use ConEx-based traffic management to encourage
use of scavenger transport protocols, 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.
Today, when loss, delay, or average 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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
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 modified 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 transport protocol.
On the host side, we have already shown (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, [TCP-MOD] proposes the required sender
modifications. ConEx works with any TCP receiver as long as it uses
SACK (selective acknowledgment), which most do. There is a receiver
optimisation [TCPM-ECN] that improves ConEx precision when using ECN,
but ConEx can still use ECN without it. Networks can make use of
ConEx even if the implementations of some of the transport protocols
on a host do not support ConEx (e.g., the implementation of DNS over
UDP might not support ConEx, while perhaps RTP over UDP and TCP
will).
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 packets that support ConEx or
packets that don't. ConEx-enabled packets bring information to the
policer about congestion expected on the rest of the path beyond the
policer. Packets that do not support ConEx bring no such
information. Therefore, the network will tend to conservatively
rate-limit non-ConEx-enabled packets 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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
Feasible initial deployment scenarios exist for a broadband access
network [CONEX-DEPLOY], a mobile communications network
[CONEX-MOBILE], and a multi-tenant data centre [CONEX-DATA]. The
first two of these scenarios are believed to work well without ECN
support, while the data center scenario works best with ECN (and ECN
can be deployed unilaterally).
The above gives only the most salient aspects of ConEx deployment.
For further detail, [CONEX-ABS] describes the incremental deployment
features of the ConEx protocol and the components that need to be
deployed for ConEx to work.
6. Experimental Considerations
ConEx is initially designed as an experimental protocol because it
makes an ambitious change at the interoperability (IP) layer, so no
amount of careful design can foresee all the potential feature
interactions with other uses of IP. This section identifies a number
of questions that would be useful to answer through well-designed
experiments:
o Are the compromises that were made in order to fit the ConEx
encoding into IP (for example, that the initial design was solely
for IPv6 and not for IPv4, and that the encoding has limited
visibility when tunnelled [CONEX-DESTOPT]) the right ones?
o Is it possible to combine techniques for distinguishing self-
congestion from shared congestion with ConEx-based traffic
management such that users are not penalized for congestion that
does not impact others on the network? Are other techniques
needed?
o In practice, how does traffic management using ConEx compare with
traditional techniques (Section 3.3)? Does it give the benefits
claimed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2?
o Approaches are proposed for congestion policing of ConEx traffic
alongside existing management (or lack thereof) of non-ConEx
traffic, including UDP traffic [CONEX-ABS]. Are they strategy-
proof against users selectively using both? Are there better
transition strategies?
o Audit devices have been designed and implemented to assure ConEx
signal integrity [CONEX-ABS]. Do they achieve minimal false hits
and false misses in a wide range of traffic scenarios? Are there
new attacks? Are there better audit designs to defend against
these?
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
o If ECN deployment remains patchy, are the proposed initial ConEx
deployment scenarios (Section 5) still useful enough to kick-start
deployment? Is auditing effective when based on loss at a primary
bottleneck? Can rest-of-path congestion be approximated
accurately enough without ECN? Are there other useful deployment
scenarios?
ConEx is intended to be a generative technology that might be used
for unexpected purposes unforeseen by the designers. Therefore, this
list of experimental considerations is not intended to be exhaustive.
7. 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 [CONEX-ABS].
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. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
9. 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
UK
EMail: toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk
John Leslie
JLC.net
10 Souhegan Street
Milford, NH 03055
US
EMail: john@jlc.net
10. Informative References
[Bauer09] Bauer, S., Clark, D., and W. Lehr, "The Evolution of
Internet Congestion", 2009.
[CONEX-ABS] Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure
(ConEx) Concepts and Abstract Mechanism", Work
in Progress, October 2012.
[CONEX-DATA] Briscoe, B. and M. Sridharan, "Network Performance
Isolation in Data Centres using Congestion Exposure
(ConEx)", Work in Progress, July 2012.
[CONEX-DEPLOY] Briscoe, B., "Initial Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
Deployment Examples", Work in Progress, July 2012.
[CONEX-DESTOPT] Krishnan, S., Kuehlewind, M., and C. Ucendo, "IPv6
Destination Option for ConEx", Work in Progress,
September 2012.
[CONEX-MOBILE] Kutscher, D., Mir, F., Winter, R., Krishnan, S.,
Zhang, Y., and C. Bernardos, "Mobile Communication
Congestion Exposure Scenario", Work in Progress,
July 2012.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
[CongPol] Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., and T. Moncaster, "Policing
Freedom to Use the Internet Resource Pool", ReArch
2008 hosted at the 2008 CoNEXT conference ,
December 2008.
[LEDBAT] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M.
Kuehlewind, "Low Extra Delay Background Transport
(LEDBAT)", Work in Progress, September 2012.
[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 Protocol-Agnostic
Congestion Management System", RFC 6057,
December 2010.
[TCP-MOD] Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "TCP
modifications for Congestion Exposure", Work
in Progress, May 2012.
[TCPM-ECN] Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "More Accurate
ECN Feedback in TCP", Work in Progress, July 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.
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6789 ConEx Concepts and Use Cases December 2012
Authors' Addresses
Bob Briscoe (editor)
BT
B54/77, Adastral Park
Martlesham Heath
Ipswich IP5 3RE
UK
Phone: +44 1473 645196
EMail: bob.briscoe@bt.com
URI: http://bobbriscoe.net/
Richard Woundy (editor)
Comcast
1701 John F Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
EMail: richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Alissa Cooper (editor)
CDT
1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
US
EMail: acooper@cdt.org
Briscoe, et al. Informational [Page 17]