From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CFDE21F0CE for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Sf62g-0003YE-BB; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:08:38 +0200 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sf62f-00042L-U1; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:08:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4FD9AA15.9080008@ifi.uio.no> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:08:37 +0200 From: Michael Welzl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet References: <4FD9914A.2000509@ifi.uio.no> <1339664098.22704.684.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1339664098.22704.684.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 2 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 8 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 20690 max rcpts/h 58 ratelimit 0 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 45770AA0992D426991CDF3B7064FD61C6273E2C5 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 8634 max/h 20 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] mosh, ecn, and diffserv marking X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:08:41 -0000 On 6/14/12 10:54 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 09:22 +0200, Michael Welzl wrote: > >> One ECN-specific concern that was addressed is that it's often in the >> interest of the receiver, but not the sender, to lie about ECN and >> simply cheat (reflect "nonono, no congestion at all" back to the >> sender). This is addressed by RFC3540, which is experimental and not >> really used. > Yes, apparently :( > I tried to restrain myself from self-promoting, but you asked for it :-) http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~michawe/research/projects/spurious/index.html There is code! - and there are possible additional benefits from the nonce. I didn't push for that in the IETF because there is a conflict with conex (I think? I lost track of all their plans for bits) for using the bit-combination required by the nonce. And conex is a bigger, better plan than my "Nonce++" suggestion. Cheers, Michael