Re: [Cake] new code point proposed

[Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>]

On 06/04/16 21:39, Dave Taht wrote:
> this is still not the document I read (which was better), but this is
> what was just discussed.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-00
> Dave Täht
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I note that somewhere along the line in the last few days I read a
>> very good outline of the  ietf proposal to dedicate ECT(1) to a
>> DCTCP-like use, discussing the benefits and problems and alternate
>> approaches. Jonathon's ELR was mentioned, but I'll be damned if I can
>> find it again. It might have been part of thursdays bar bof, don't
>> remember. I thought it was in iccrg, wasn't.
>>
>> I have a LOT more hope for repurposing ECT(1) than diffserv markings.

There is an updated version, maybe that's what you wanted :).  The diff 
says there's a new section in particular (2.3 Pre-Requisite Transport 
Layer Behaviour).

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-01


I read -00. Am I forgetting something, or does the proposed scaleable 
TCP (DCTCP etc) break deployments of routers with ECN like `codel ecn`?  
`fq_codel` (default ecn) might avoid unfairness but it still doesn't 
sound ideal.  I know they've said ECN routers aren't broadly deployed, 
but it seems like any that do exist would suffer badly.

Alan