Re: [Bloat] incremental deployment, transport and L4S (Re: when does the CoDel part of fq_codel help in the real world?)

[Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>]

> On 29 Nov 2018, at 13:52, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Nov, 2018, at 2:06 pm, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's my proposal.
>> 
>> - and it's an interesting one. Indeed, I wasn't aware that you're thinking of a DCTCP-style signal from a string of packets.
>> 
>> Of course, this is hard to get right - there are many possible flavours to ideas like this ... but yes, interesting!
> 
> I'm glad you think so.  Working title is ELR - Explicit Load Regulation.
> 
> As noted, this needs standardisation effort, which is a bit outside my realm of experience - Cake was a great success, but relied entirely on exploiting existing standards to their logical conclusions.  I think I started writing some material to put in an I-D, but got distracted by something more urgent.

Well - "interesting" is one thing, "better than current proposals" is another... I guess this needs lots of evaluations before going anywhere.


> If there's an opportunity to coordinate with relevant people from similar efforts, so much the better.  I wonder, for example, whether the DCTCP folks would be open to supporting a more deployable version of their idea, or whether that would be a political non-starter for them.

I'm not convinced (and I strongly doubt that they would be) that this would indeed be more deployable; your idea also includes TCP option changes, which have their own deployment trouble... the L4S effort, to me, sounds "easier" to deploy  (which is not to say that it's easy to deploy at all; though I did like a recent conversation on possibly deploying it with a PEP... that sounded quite doable to me).

Cheers,
Michael