From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (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 53B6C3CB35 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id e80so4013092ote.5 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 01:54:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cd5Z8kxEKrXSChKLUYCxL0GKDed6Y99qBqMDUJayESU=; b=eVdy960R2ed9jIRGOwEUmaYcigyB2z6HWteBSLA4frdDtNLY2QVnT68A/fzSTgN1mV TeNaSCMUsS5CvU9O/mHgAI1KwnxlUSw3GgaWOF+/oC6LlA8yKL/CyPQuDl+TDmelYw7E JLfwlfx/no7e8rqg21UuX14uXC+R8g4js1Wg0d3LDURxm5KIsJBsjUqp4yP0921LPQBW LKVO9hPQ9lEAOiox/nsrhq15cUucAcHdEz9QHhrkzmYedmzwJv26vn2SDAORDYtHz8tn qMgzYCMrgkViSVdURIcC+jH5tbTGWMPMeywZd//ul9bEQX9a/s0kl60pZ1zXm0Ny8Ye6 Fndg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cd5Z8kxEKrXSChKLUYCxL0GKDed6Y99qBqMDUJayESU=; b=Yj1Ni/VdxwrgjWTAzqXDo6ZvvG0fx5zKlyH2ckuzBf3oGq328Eha7qi7L30E1ZeeNY QVtt5izkoxpUa+3Co+fPXVugXMWA3VooaBYtF/vXHvexdF1AwmsfYMISxmnzIoBNEeLK n5Dkj6/dWRdfN+iaBBtVuCY2ZDoxUEK+my9N37cUwnvG7BzJDfjoARYYHPYKiWJsxctA T8JGByX/zCbzmWcBG30d/ID2tG89iQxWYYxUo4gU/Bs+ObB1FOBO6Y4KgRODtF4ikFVy 3TkB8MyY4v3mXO/gdHf07c8TDlWdo5bpiKj6oSl5UkKSvLsTKR5Z6s1JQG8dBX5+AVfI +2yQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXBAnFGw6tv+XUyYZBNY+0qcPewIqWDRappZeYQzLed3fbiQnBv 971hcoVsRNH+TnqV8CVV3RCke7Ghf3R9w7dWI5o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrZwUiO+B+CAkBl1j43Uru5hm6bynVsZt/iqQiHNbGmfCcpCebwwYj13XwsnWT1HdhUrfYOHCD0K+zQefm+ls= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:c8:: with SMTP id x8mr1111150oto.154.1553331252147; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 01:54:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2c8ad5fe4be5c52ad1a3c2bf7f91a09a@mail.gmail.com> <00674bef-877b-3ccc-9c8e-e7e06ee8e1cd@kit.edu> In-Reply-To: <00674bef-877b-3ccc-9c8e-e7e06ee8e1cd@kit.edu> From: Luca Muscariello Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 09:54:00 +0100 Message-ID: To: Roland Bless Cc: Victor Hou , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080ba070584bf1df4" 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: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:54:13 -0000 --00000000000080ba070584bf1df4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +1 On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:02 AM Roland Bless wrote: > Hi, > > On 22.03.19 at 19:28 Victor Hou wrote: > > > Broadcom has been deeply involved in developing the Low Latency DOCSIS > > cable industry specification that Bob Briscoe mentioned. We concur with > > the L4S use of ECT(1). L4S can be implemented either in a dual-queue or > > an fq implementation. SCE cannot be implemented with a dual-queue > > implementation; the only way to support it is with an fq > > implementation. An fq implementation is incompatible with the Low > > Latency DOCSIS specification developed within the cable industry. > > I don't understand your rationale here. > The basic SCE concept could be used for L4S as well. > I suggest to use an additional DSCP to mark L4S packets. > The L4S sender/receiver can simply react to the SCE > markings the same way that they now react to CE, with > the difference that it's safer to react to SCE, because > the signal is unambiguous, whereas CE would be ambiguous > (could be set by either classic AQM/ECN node or by > an L4S node). > > Regards > Roland > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --00000000000080ba070584bf1df4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:02 AM Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> wrote:
Hi,

On 22.03.19 at 19:28 Victor Hou wrote:

> Broadcom has been deeply involved in developing the Low Latency DOCSIS=
> cable industry specification that Bob Briscoe mentioned.=C2=A0 We conc= ur with
> the L4S use of ECT(1).=C2=A0 L4S can be implemented either in a dual-q= ueue or
> an fq implementation. SCE cannot be implemented with a dual-queue
> implementation; the only way to support it is with an fq
> implementation.=C2=A0 An fq implementation is incompatible with the Lo= w
> Latency DOCSIS specification developed within the cable industry.

I don't understand your rationale here.
The basic SCE concept could be used for L4S as well.
I suggest to use an additional DSCP to mark L4S packets.
The L4S sender/receiver can simply react to the SCE
markings the same way that they now react to CE, with
the difference that it's safer to react to SCE, because
the signal is unambiguous, whereas CE would be ambiguous
(could be set by either classic AQM/ECN node or by
an L4S node).

Regards
=C2=A0Roland
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--00000000000080ba070584bf1df4--