From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F29CD3B29E for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gSddV-0007hZ-Mz; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:54:53 +0100 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gSddV-000F1W-5n; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:54:53 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <5AC079FD-8DCF-4F3A-9E3B-BFFD3D1099E7@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:54:50 +0100 Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <60A508F7-9136-4E0F-A3FD-7CEF3A5724BF@ifi.uio.no> References: <65EAC6C1-4688-46B6-A575-A6C7F2C066C5@heistp.net> <38535869-BF61-4FC4-A0FB-96E91CC4F076@ifi.uio.no> <87va4gwe74.fsf@taht.net> <7125B446-F2C4-45B3-B48C-8720B1E35776@gmail.com> <7D833179-4D95-4C2F-B0AF-4FFD4D29DEE4@ifi.uio.no> <963ACC89-890D-4EA6-9E5E-1E7315F07C5A@gmail.com> <376C9A94-8EAA-4DCF-BFDC-ADA4E11A9FC7@ifi.uio.no> <5AC079FD-8DCF-4F3A-9E3B-BFFD3D1099E7@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: D4EE2A1FF8BEC1E240394178CAA5FD5FD5118CEF Subject: Re: [Bloat] incremental deployment, transport and L4S (Re: when does the CoDel part of fq_codel help in the real world?) 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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:54:56 -0000 > On 29 Nov 2018, at 13:52, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 29 Nov, 2018, at 2:06 pm, Michael Welzl = wrote: >>=20 >>> That's my proposal. >>=20 >> - 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. >>=20 >> Of course, this is hard to get right - there are many possible = flavours to ideas like this ... but yes, interesting! >=20 > I'm glad you think so. Working title is ELR - Explicit Load = Regulation. >=20 > 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