From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com (mail-iw0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE3C201AEE for ; Sun, 8 May 2011 20:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so6142789iwn.16 for ; Sun, 08 May 2011 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EGA/2c7A/A+/MIHuPCwCYkAPkEfE5ELPOAjStblNUxY=; b=MQz3juINXVE885rrzRoRcQqvG24z5+jVOv/GoJMTSx18IodQnX7EBqc7nkcpalSDas mVdgYcEZLgA/ij2jy929nkmt/1tYxoAozV6V4xNHHzfK4kKvDSFtNpYBy8qIGKDT8gTa 9U7xTg2HdkWYYeZNG9rYQcKSQW65tvHpdIlYQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bJ5xkxguRIGDPsUbk+jowFw1YaI+24v9xHb35yuYvhTaXjEqXxZ2KaYjIMVn1PfKZL KRwF9kziLPjQpEk+rV8dbJa3I8QzHkRAzCSJSEzh1hHjvFXOeXypmDoAMiVsNJNrSjnb xAolAWIMS1c4BeOvdSgHzCRigHm4sKUikR4YY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.69.198 with SMTP id a6mr790402ibj.181.1304911689503; Sun, 08 May 2011 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.31.201 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2011 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4DA67BBE.9050606@taht.net> <1303145028.24248.1442482225@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1304695674.3066.57.camel@edumazet-laptop> <5D1A6041-9ACA-450A-BE9B-F9415F697C65@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 21:28:09 -0600 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015176f1300b755a704a2cf6d70 Cc: Bufferbloat Mainlinglist Subject: Re: [Bloat] No ECN marking in IPv6 linux 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: Mon, 09 May 2011 03:22:00 -0000 --0015176f1300b755a704a2cf6d70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Final patch found, merged into openwrt (tested on 2.6.38, 2.6.37), and incorporated into the bismark and iscwrt builds. Nice catch. I hope the next round of sfb testing goes much better. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jonathan Morton w= rote: > >> >> On 6 May, 2011, at 9:14 pm, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> > I am curious as to what the correct behavior here should be for >> encapsulated (6in4, 6to4, teredo) packets, and if this functionality was >> also borked. I was under the impression that for encapsulated packets th= e >> tos field was copied from the encapsulated packet to the ipv4 header. >> >> Intuitively, these protocols are at the same level as IP in the stack, s= o >> they should preserve ECN information as much as possible. Copying the T= OS >> field should be sufficient... >> >> > My concern here is that a AQM-aware (ECN) qdisc such as SFB on the extern= al > interface will not recognize a flow for what it is, when encapsulated... > > > --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com --0015176f1300b755a704a2cf6d70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Final patch found, merged into openwrt (tested on 2.6.38, 2.6.37), and inco= rporated into the bismark and iscwrt builds. Nice catch.

I hope the= next round of sfb testing goes much better.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri= , May 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

On 6 May, 2011, at 9:14 pm, Dave Taht wrote:

> I am curious as to what the correct behavior here should be for encaps= ulated (6in4, 6to4, teredo) packets, and if this functionality was also bor= ked. I was under the impression that for encapsulated packets the tos field= was copied from the encapsulated packet to the ipv4 header.

Intuitively, these protocols are at the same level as IP in the stack= , so they should preserve ECN information as much as possible. =A0Copying t= he TOS field should be sufficient...


My con= cern here is that a AQM-aware (ECN) qdisc such as SFB on the external inter= face will not recognize a flow for what it is, when encapsulated...



--
Dave T=E4ht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608<= br>http://the-ed= ge.blogspot.com
--0015176f1300b755a704a2cf6d70--