@techreport {Briscoe08b:PCN-enc-3-in-1,
	title = {Encoding Three Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) States in the IP Header using a Single Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP)},
	number = {6660},
	year = {2012},
	month = {07/2012},
	publisher = {RFC Editor},
	type = {Request for Comments},
	keywords = {Admission Control, congestion control, Congestion Notification, Data Communication, Differentiated Services, encoding, Internet, Marking, networks, Protocols, QoS, Quality of Service},
	url = {http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6660},
	author = {Briscoe, Bob and Moncaster, Toby and Menth, Michael}
}
@techreport {Karag09:PCN-enc-compare,
	title = {Overview of Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding},
	number = {6627},
	year = {2012},
	month = {07/2012},
	publisher = {RFC Editor},
	type = {Request for Comments},
	keywords = {Admission Control, congestion control, Congestion Notification, Data Communication, Differentiated Services, encoding, Internet, Marking, networks, Protocols, QoS, Quality of Service},
	url = {http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6627},
	author = {Karagiannis, Georgios and Kwok Ho {Chan} and Moncaster, Toby and Menth, Michael and Eardley, Philip and Briscoe, Bob}
}
@article {Menth10b:PCN_overview,
	title = {Pre-Congestion Notification: New QoS Support for Differentiated Services IP Networks},
	journal = {IEEE Communications Magazine},
	volume = {50},
	number = {3},
	year = {2012},
	month = {03/2012},
	pages = {94{\textendash}103},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	keywords = {Admission Control, congestion control, Congestion Notification, Data Communication, Differentiated Services, encoding, Internet, Marking, networks, Protocols, QoS, Quality of Service},
	issn = {0163-6804},
	doi = {10.1109/MCOM.2012.6163587},
	author = {Menth, Michael and Briscoe, Bob and Tina (Ting Zou) {Tsou}}
}
@article {Simula.ND.385,
	title = {Loop-Free Alternates and Not-Via Addresses: a Proper Combination for IP Fast Reroute?},
	journal = {Computer Networks},
	volume = {54},
	number = {8},
	year = {2010},
	month = {June},
	pages = {1300 - 1315},
	abstract = {The IETF currently discusses fast reroute mechanisms for IP networks (IP FRR). IP FRR accelerates the recovery in case of network element failures and avoids micro-loops during re-convergence. Several mechanisms are proposed. Loop-free alternates (LFAs) are simple but cannot cover all single link and node failures. Not-via addresses can protect against these failures but are more complex, in particular, they use tunneling techniques to deviate backup traffic. In the IETF it has been proposed to combine both mechanisms to merge their advantages: simplicity and full failure coverage. This work analyzes LFAs and classifies them according to their abilities. We qualitatively compare LFAs and not-via addresses and develop a concept for their combined application to achieve 100\% single failure coverage, while using simple LFAs wherever possible. The applicability of existing LFAs depends on the resilience requirements of the network. We study the backup path length and the link utilization for both IP FRR methods and quantify the decapsulation load and the increase of the routing table size caused by not-via addresses. We conclude that the combined usage of both methods has no advantage compared to the application of not-via addresses only.},
	author = {Menth, Michael and Hartmann, Matthias and Martin, R{\"u}diger and Cicic, Tarik and Kvalbein, Amund}
}
@article {Menth10a:PCN_Survey,
	title = {A Survey of PCN-Based Admission Control and Flow Termination},
	journal = {IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials},
	volume = {12},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	month = {08/2010},
	pages = {357{\textendash}375},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	keywords = {Admission Control, congestion control, Congestion Notification, Data Communication, Differentiated Services, encoding, Internet, Marking, networks, Protocols, QoS, Quality of Service},
	doi = {10.1109/SURV.2010.040710.00078},
	url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05455792},
	author = {Menth, Michael and Lehrieder, Frank and Briscoe, Bob and Eardley, Philip and Moncaster, Toby and Babiarz, Jozef and Charny, Anna and Zhang, Xinyang and Taylor, Tom and Chan, Kwok-Ho and Satoh, Daisuke and Karagiannis, Georgios}
}
@techreport {Moncaster08b:PCN-enc-base,
	title = {Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information},
	number = {5696},
	year = {2009},
	month = {11/2009},
	publisher = {RFC Editor},
	type = {Request for Comments},
	abstract = {The objective of the Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) architecture is to protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain. It achieves this by marking packets belonging to PCN-flows when the rate of traffic exceeds certain configured thresholds on links in the domain. These marks can then be evaluated to determine how close the domain is to being congested. This document specifies how such marks are encoded into the IP header by redefining the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) codepoints within such domains. The baseline encoding described here provides only two PCN encoding states: Not-marked and PCN-marked. Future extensions to this encoding may be needed in order to provide more than one level of marking severity.},
	keywords = {Admission Control, congestion control, Congestion Notification, Data Communication, Differentiated Services, encoding, Internet, Marking, networks, Protocols, QoS, Quality of Service},
	url = {http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5696},
	author = {Moncaster, Toby and Briscoe, Bob and Menth, Michael}
}
@techreport {Moncaster09a:conex-need,
	title = {The Need for Congestion Exposure in the Internet},
	number = {draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem-03},
	year = {2009},
	note = {Expired},
	month = {10/2009},
	publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
	type = {Internet Draft},
	keywords = {Accountability, Architecture, congestion control, Data Communication, Denial of Service, Fairness, Internet, networks, QoS, Quality of Service, Resource Sharing},
	url = {http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem-03.txt},
	author = {Moncaster, Toby and Krug, Louise and Menth, Michael and Jo{\~a}o Taveira {Ara{\'u}jo} and Blake, Steven and Woundy, Richard}
}
@article {Simula.ND.351,
	title = {Relaxed Multiple Routing Configurations: IP Fast Reroute for Single and Correlated Failures},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management},
	volume = {6},
	number = {1},
	year = {2009},
	month = {March},
	pages = {1-14},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	abstract = {Multi-topology routing is an increasingly popular IP network management concept that allows transport of different traffic types over disjoint network paths. The concept is of particular interest for implementation of IP fast reroute (IP FRR). First, it can support guaranteed, instantaneous recovery from any single link or node failure as well as from many combined failures. Second, different failures result in routing over different network topologies, which gives better control of the traffic distribution in the networks after a failure. The authors have previously proposed an IP FRR scheme based on multi-topology routing called Multiple Routing Configurations (MRC). In this paper we present an enhanced IP FRR scheme which we call {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}relaxed MRC\&$\#$39;\&$\#$39; (rMRC). rMRC simplifies the topology construction and increases the routing flexibility in each topology. This makes rMRC better suited for successful load distribution after failures and handling of correlated failures. According to our experimental evaluation, the number of backup topologies required to provide protection against the same failures is reduced in rMRC compared to MRC, hence reducing state in routers. In addition, the backup paths are shorter, and the link utilization is significantly better. The paper also presents how rMRC can provide recovery from multiple correlated failures without compromising much on the number of backup topologies required and the path lengths.},
	doi = {10.1109/TNSM.2009.090301},
	author = {Cicic, Tarik and Audun Fosselie {Hansen} and Kvalbein, Amund and Hartmann, Matthias and Menth, Michael and Martin, R{\"u}diger and Gjessing, Stein and Lysne, Olav}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.ND.72,
	title = {Relaxed Multiple Routing Configurations for IP Fast Reroute},
	journal = {IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS{\textquoteright}08)},
	year = {2008},
	month = {April},
	publisher = {IEE},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {Multi-topology routing is an increasingly popular IP network management concept that allows transport of different traffic types over disjoint network paths. The concept is of particular interest for implementation of IP fast reroute (IP FRR). First, it can support guaranteed, instantaneous recovery from any link or node failure. Second, different failures result in routing over different network topologies, which augments the parameter space for load distribution optimizations. Multiple Routing Configurations (MRC) is the state-of-the-art IP FRR scheme based on multi-topology routing today. In this paper we present a new, enhanced IP FRR scheme which we call {\textquotedblleft}relaxed MRC{\textquotedblright} (rMRC). rMRC simplifies the topology construction and increases the routing flexibility in each topology. According to our experimental evaluation, rMRC has several benefits compared to MRC. The number of backup topologies required to provide protection against the same set of failures is reduced, hence reducing state in routers. In addition, the backup paths are shorter, and the link utilization is significantly better.},
	isbn = {978-1-4244-2066-7},
	author = {Cicic, Tarik and Audun Fosselie {Hansen} and Kvalbein, Amund and Hartmann, Matthias and Martin, R"udiger and Menth, Michael},
	editor = {IEEE, }
}
