From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 4D5673B2F8; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:48:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id u206so81511071wme.1; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 03:48:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UMD9be6YoJby8EvxLYLiZG+YGzCVwanY/Eko9ZTXYNs=; b=PhxQcToT/moZHCNTwRzku/x1JeFEcPwKkTqWccPARzhAfFaOd5yVrIX9IyCJXfkJMd ZHJKUlAIsNr0m/eLwF6dQ7NXlq2ZYPfK7iWZhrklM8rRhU580p2Fit9mB0oApuQXJIWi Oyy5J+Z6OuPWeKsnTMsXV6I1Q/yKI+IqUQzMoTWmSZWX3gtCYl7X92c3f/HH22PxtaZr zl2NBAB8jlEUfBrHr7FWR43ED18+cxfd6yzSUR3356k+CnkNI5Ulzq6kwPA/f5uBR2F0 leljTzmYp4fcbAJZWqeHpyfI7onmZU5ZDEwJpnQGaGYdtlZcHLohLQs8v/YXP1S5oPY2 P0pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UMD9be6YoJby8EvxLYLiZG+YGzCVwanY/Eko9ZTXYNs=; b=kjFGyW5Y0tH09tCpAvB8oY4jZEcQ0HuWHPgVzYAfS4UAsCTQ8oskOxG2MAljIXcgaN AAN/ZMnWBafHYPJUs16zKXbloJsgkPUfwq63PQ7lFaTMu2AbAGLBe5UrD19cUgggtoOy oTuPSl4aSf1pgg+29InNeMcUzKriZ56JciQevTAjD+yEfVQitXfPdUGWIEDTukjrrqzW gAZJuO5SZvfduf6OSzMp6ZoarBbpJ2WI/8M0PPsnjcPVv9rUNVBJPZecuKJ7fnHwTF0+ rRb0iVnqV6yQnXCfdoIGpwKOPbopp0StOrkeYUY2vJ3y4lv+Ll9MZXlienx0nyBAlCax wa8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKASWAN8FbprhglxDP+iZ0K4//q4m978R8TwgZjIEoMKPYWff5FUgFMRPX7FjVxVQ== X-Received: by 10.28.99.6 with SMTP id x6mr27993786wmb.25.1460026090179; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (80-44-34-54.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com. [80.44.34.54]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id hh8sm7816403wjc.42.2016.04.07.03.48.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 03:48:09 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Taht , moeller0 References: <2415E651-1852-4B48-A9B8-553D1A2507AE@gmail.com> <4A573483-5188-4893-82B3-721AEF527534@gmail.com> <5031EE38-920A-4B08-858A-5DC4302450AA@gmx.de> <3C097824-8754-4169-8FAB-7C802C2FB5D8@gmail.com> Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Alan Jenkins Message-ID: <57063AE7.9030408@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:48:07 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Cake] new code point proposed X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:48:11 -0000 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 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