From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28C823CB35; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:17:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1553077033; bh=yJNqzPD8rF98lktghN8BU4D5In0BQ2t3mgOzMjIch5E=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=fCj7L0r+phebBoVac1Dfgkzh8sQHIcNR1r0LPHt5ls9gxRaHKPMkEx6FE5LuOjxKc z1pde1nzAeosMP9B2WDlnlqjZnmdLK7HkG6INIc8fl12/G7RYchNTzLox1DhdfvrOg Drpa0GYjsl8uwJdCIP+v7Id6v2EcqefjkP5Ch1/o= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvVYZ-1gxiQc2kPj-010gFr; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:17:13 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:17:11 +0100 Cc: Greg White , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , tsvwg IETF list , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5CF9D2B5-F99C-4798-A0FD-0228AA9673CC@gmx.de> References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.com> <1552846034.909628287@apps.rackspace.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:XOWlnsqe8bGqqmAEvcQGuX4NDDRRD8t+rFdwhGGc+L9xZtgmHj+ pw29o90F75SFqOq1yIdMXN+WY1uWvmYD4IqGeKsufI504ILnbSC1AAhEhq9ZsWZVIl0Q2rw yzQg7AQ5ZC2wQCDLDgHB4BoydKOFJTfDtVWkTXB81YkFQBmCTRA4SG9zdC9XXt0SH9gf/02 eRiHNwKicMUJOz7APlmng== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:TGsXCIsAfxQ=:fKiC6xn0/eYU/dEz3nGW2S AZXjytCEBX9eHw47qXZEk3+PM00eUN+LcvR4lRcINY4y0niJiD3AN7omTeQGRlzfPEV6Ed3GD KJ60UX0A3Paz+AVHRvThbVlV+woc9ASKFozebtoLIcYqRdLFNb+4flkPxuRj73gLCe3oBRky/ piwYMksRuhbyhZhkoWQ9vHL+lCTsOptLwo+FyveQZI8aq2Q2kE99w3nMq012LeOsEw7BYPjH0 ce296qhyw3iF9QJzIcwbNo4nG7Fl92zzouUfu1IycqAkK46viTWpw/k1UXOVsZEzCdDJaM8iu je5E2rEzndkQRFIAGRReBltreQkA6gzUOCcaCGtahZiPk45oW1LhwnOopw3tjUXnQrgwOqrZG /wKIKsAexJJvuTdvQ/g6Wi1dUDcKKQ+wAn5oG/REyBhP0BL9qD6htW1J4TMmooec1c0sfpE8i 8jTSXM/IxaCrnO9zs8QYel4z17Mdt1kpfy8D5264ivz0LwlOfQZEU8ik7LqKzBzGjrvDwt7LZ c1892YIVPesI6Mm2rIjA0Z9uldKFoZ0kgssTBDlTktpJ/Eu9hD2DZ+Wp55Mi+9Rnk7YcNoc+U /j5sPYHz8IXuGtd4i//Z4HiYlDyh7tb6yZzJWL3keEyjW6ZYRurlNeXsTfeFusQE/xFL0Ogxt 6UPhUjSveAMU6A3IoZrT/lKhbzf8hVQDci1bYLcDN5j+hIjqjtzksAAWMTyd8RUWlKwl83s2T /vMhZloyri8FsA5XmspzQ8vMSv14qbiZSPXocwIVk71nczRSOQIWiSv7fmUgbND+aHyz07xbY zjt9dok8QZXiVRhhiY9r1gVNyzKE5Qo0508TUt9IoqW0lPpcVcSL0DsmBIq6Ow1I7klOrSXyk VykFBqMVOkLejNbS+L7oqoN4Q98S5k0EtKycp+xg6tj9CAV4+dpCKF9W0doiKZtlZVnqSp7Mx DsrDi1yf7hg== Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:17:18 -0000 Dear All, > On Mar 20, 2019, at 00:59, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:44 AM Greg White = wrote: >> [...] >> But, L4S has been demonstrated in real equipment and in simulation, = and leverages an existing congestion >=20 > Not under circumstances I can control. That's Not Science. [...] It would be great if the L4S project maybe could help kick-start = independent testing, by creating an sharing two VMs one with the = appropriate client side patches and one with a L4S aware AQM (probably = curvy RED to avoid the patent issue, assuming the patent does not cover = curvyRED). So that it is easier to "kick" the tiers in a way that tests = what the L4S project considers compliant clients/AQM. Personally I am = interested to see how robust and reliable the detection of non-L4S CE = sources is and how well the L4S side of the AQM will tolerate CE-marked = packets from non-L4S senders, or in other words how well the "isolation" = works. And also how L4S endpoints will deal with SCE emitting AQMs on = their path. I admit that I have doubts that ECT(1), basically a single = "constellation" of a 2-bit bitfield can serve as a replacement for a = single independent bit in a single-bit bit-field, that seems required = for real isolation of flows of different ECN-response types. Best Regards Sebastian