From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2213B29E; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 03:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0FC54B2; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:08:06 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1552288086; bh=PZ584d6GsNM4k9w0VMoXWQ2qGR9tqwVaybp3awU7gLk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=zXVafDtQMuhVVFFTW9waV1KhZYP0rK+p6g5pwOszsQ7MFUgHi2JSUkDyKUcZsU1GH F7lvlyPJfysxI1A7kzu9DaqXSgzSBN2AarWeHqQY5JHw0wzSXF6VwZt51Hzmepx5b+ DYk5JRWzMZ7907+zTJ4V/go4WAmVsRmlSql8ctVk= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB33B0; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:08:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:08:06 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: "Holland, Jake" , Cake List , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat In-Reply-To: <1EE25778-8571-4506-A334-38C544470ACE@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com> <1EE25778-8571-4506-A334-38C544470ACE@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cake] [Bloat] The "Some Congestion Experienced" ECN codepoint - a new internet draft - 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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 07:08:07 -0000 On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote: > An interesting idea, but SCE marks will appear even when there's a lot > of congestion (at high rates, ie. probably every packet that doesn't > carry CE), as well as showing up at low frequency when the level of > congestion only warrants reducing the growth rate. I think the word > "Some" is sufficiently descriptive, while "Slight" might cause people to > ignore it completely. One way to handle this would be "buffering experienced" or something like that. Ie if this packet is being enqueued into a buffer with non-trivial number of packets in it, mark it. The L4S proposal also has the property that their use of this last code point combination in the entire packet header (and this is a big thing, this is the last unicorn) also meant the packet was allowed to be re-ordered. I thought this was a big and nice thing, for other areas. This new proposal removes that property. >From what I can see, L4S actually is quite novel and has the chance to seriously change the way queueing is done. This proposal seems more like "a little more of what we had before" which I do not think warrants claiming this last unicorn codepoint. I'd like its use to be truly novel and be more than a tweak. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se