From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3A921F194; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:33:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::68ac:f071:19ff:3455]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:33:57 -0500 From: Dave Dolson To: Wes Felter , "aqm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Thread-Index: AQHQVJ0J+9InyssQxUGw8Kj3YWubiJ0J81mA//+uoXA= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:33:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:34:27 -0000 Would you do that to TCP or UDP traffic? At IETF I often hear laments about middle-boxes breaking the internet by be= ing "clever" with certain types of traffic. It seems that policing ICMP falls into that category. There may have been bugs in the past, but I'm not aware that ICMP packets a= re any more dangerous than UDP or TCP. And if the RFCs can be believed, ICM= Pv6 is critical to determining Path-MTU. Don't drop those. One may wish to rate-limit ICMP (or DNS or TCP) flows as a matter of networ= k policy, but in my opinion this should be kept orthogonal to solving buffe= r bloat. Taken to the extreme, a network should support full utilization of a link d= oing only ping. If I wish to use my connection to the internet to ping host= s at full line rate, why not? David Dolson Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc. -----Original Message----- From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wes Felter Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:07 PM To: aqm@ietf.org Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net; bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" What about a token bucket policer, so more than N ICMP/second gets=20 penalized but a normal ping won't be. --=20 Wes Felter _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm