From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 060123B29F for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g62so66266318lfe.3 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VlCNPWyUzuAV3l+ikNBbKhk4/5C5auxwRabrkZPbQ6E=; b=C+M1vROE83w98RcXg0jHte/q0I9UB4Jh8xA0APz37/hTVc0iLOIJMFNIUdUHnWdpA1 RSSrMvX4shoFhQqtaGWzwIeIt3059Xfgsff7GQqxUhZpotuY/OgFmooxfVudhsDVqypi 9um7TDavIv/8n3AbDvx3f+Uu/W9mY3ZVNKJn5ULs6jIBF+40z5zawkv2Ajnge2aAbq32 1KuGmHbK7NHoAnB6ui28k5mMQqSYUozqc6RNid0F4uKif5rko4i/AoS/bxfQEIw7i3JN lMNv9qQS/5WxyzqOg7HTRFTHZgoHvpKDz5vRBMX8rTxWNIreK8eu56wKkmPJXJl+1DDB cSkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VlCNPWyUzuAV3l+ikNBbKhk4/5C5auxwRabrkZPbQ6E=; b=D7ozCZP+iu1v1M8/jZQk5yhoBE27YRBGabyPO5jBnUrMPep7gfnXcQ1qqepmxdasqP 9aXDFFjiScRu1Z8+TooeWruL8xQ5VZPMPmX0YIU2t0X/AYmnaDXFHJWo5DEVyS2Eovf3 dId9J4p7ozBFM+RlGDYOjOx45ZhOgyzMZauAhVWMFxqmWZKNB9Zgx1SHLjhPNzVBEgAa UG3q1wdsHwxE7hB5RHVrxUpaHF6GAaN/LTPVlXonMwh2Uqq3DRHyJh/Yp3vYq43WH6hr Mz6UlYlQW98YbpXp/gazn29UhMXbTJd1BRmKu383F7KF6P1cWElYk10ryF+JMs1aHyo+ yFhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOuE09QomXNRVi+ZviFqx6r7l/m23JdaT3NZQavEzHv3T2OlXvbP40dFOvUOHEWhA== X-Received: by 10.25.166.196 with SMTP id p187mr10547412lfe.48.1475105695697; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.13] (37-33-90-35.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.33.90.35]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u18sm706926lja.11.2016.09.28.16.34.54 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 02:34:52 +0300 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6D370F33-92FF-42D0-AE6F-3425AE9DAFA3@gmail.com> References: <32E6B0A0-6014-4510-9D97-02645F0EFDFD@gmail.com> <27B5A7E3-203D-468F-B487-BFFC9294D857@gmail.com> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] cake for net-next 4.8 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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:34:57 -0000 > On 29 Sep, 2016, at 02:26, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > All along I'd been assuming > that a specialized TCP of some new flavor yet-to-be-agreed-upon would > negotiate ECN and most/all its packets would be marked ECT(1), rather > than ECT(0), and a new AQM would treat a flow like that differently, > but still mark that flow with a CE that the endpoint would interpret > differently. >=20 > Are you saying ECT(1) would, instead, be used as a "weaker or harder" = CE? The former appears to be the solution TCP Prague are keen on. It = doesn=E2=80=99t seem like a robust, deployable solution to me, despite = the tremendous amount of effort that=E2=80=99s gone into that class of = solutions. The latter is my suggestion - to use the distinction between ECT(0) and = ECT(1) as a hint, rather than a command, to slow down. I also think we = should move computation of the congestion window to the receiver, as = that greatly simplifies the reverse-path signalling problem. You may remember my description of ELR. I started documenting it more = formally, and then got distracted by something more urgent... - Jonathan Morton