Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, David P. Reed wrote:

> So if the responsible network engineers in the carriers cannot agree on 
> anything, IETF is wasting its time.

The IETF has already said that anything diffserv is domain-internal only. 
I have joined the effort of the LE PHB and see if we can get some kind of 
agreement and transparancy for a PHB that is aimed at customer access only 
and "drop most of me and my pals at any sign of customer access line 
congestion", and see if that can be agreed on.

Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, because 
it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment.

The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment is 
typically a ddos magnet. See my emails on this topic on (this? other?) 
mailing lists where I try to create a three class buffering system saying 
"LE gets 5%, BE and 'everything-else' gets to split the difference".

I even got pushback on this here, and then we're not even close to people 
running large ISP networks who see ddos attacks happen hourly.

Saying L4S should "just use diffserv" is as constructive to say "go away 
and pound a rock" or "we want that bit pattern so.. screw you".

L4S has a much better possibility of actually getting deployment into the 
wider Internet packet-moving equipment than anything being talked about 
here. Same with PIE as opposed to FQ_CODEL. I know it's might not be as 
good, but it fits better into actual silicon and it's being proposed by 
people who actually have better channels into the people setting hard 
requirements.

I suggest you consider joining them instead of opposing them.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se