From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 EDE143CB39 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:04:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1563573839; bh=YUOplZXpjJZ64FkSw5t4xxTSJQ8BdA+RTPEv5bSoHXQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=kcwBH/j7aoVzCU7pgWvYJ3pz1URojp49VtQW3ICQ1oTGeUaEjMufFwfgeubjRfxSC SFi83G43MVvvx8Pe4p1uzRHrr/zMhjqLlaDsAZDvkWusjYhdX91E1p7CBIxCxKLax/ +/86y8EUib23+ZiHM7wcdcYQSxKlBf/Azh0iT8xw= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from hms-beagle2.lan ([77.185.86.147]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MQMuX-1i27d0125R-00MOC2; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 00:03:59 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 00:03:57 +0200 Cc: "Black, David" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Dave Taht , "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de> References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <4aff6353-eb0d-b0b8-942d-9c92753f074e@bobbriscoe.net> <1238A446-6E05-4A55-8B3B-878C8F39FC75@gmail.com> <17B33B39-D25A-432C-9037-3A4835CCC0E1@gmail.com> <52F85CFC-B7CF-4C7A-88B8-AE0879B3CCFE@gmail.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:okjs3RPvoZ2KB+bCMlQ8AIRMjprGKYbGR+S+QOZqxnPrd3gWwmW uNjNtOWDK0l6BWDmv6KFAte6rFBVjA9BbybAWT70gI8PpsLbQTFHLUdv4MzKT98UkhRF13o DpSUilfeSg60ccLopqk09Z0hUxTpJYFb84UKSHoPp/cY8jgjMcO2CRPq1+jNX0+65vFq/sw 1poOPpie2bXFetUz9o7XA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:LRzIrVf6SSw=:Ubj0umJyXLdl2owbtUimnv 9S12qFuVPUDHyC37IKKBMReXa08VO6ApuXh+RDD49oaTlRYcJDKwpNBkkhD0ze1aWnCTQDe11 XIRFVOWZwSzSvhXJTuCFoMQwYbp3uO+HJK361hOVIgMLuAE6nSh5VZSgb5oeYmLm4CDzbLcGB UZ7CDh5F8EJnpHR9eteiYH88ac8NSBsuF1M6yXhnoJq3r7Jwjuec/kdj1ydrQytRiX0q8ZH0X 6rLHSWjB3ni6JjyETftA6n9r+0kITKWjxe8fb4c3O1STazTluCV/RFkSIzbWikZQfXHWHGGUo 8ocxvPCCqlmh4jMgd12OytvCBsOtjJ97M3bAvWYM2eataQxac20aSANh2NSrr7BC/TYtigPBb SPx+AO7iSf+yevnWBjJS/6b7X6J9RAOVO3R8de/VZvAxh+C6t6dedFiDu4GbEy2AqfU0J/MGy tPs7YwCzEPm7q60TIgsnw7j1HBYIlheDKn+ta4Q/GeQV6yQ5XkGmZsNSE8Nq9/4WJBT3wJAbj aGeKNJ5OIlT37KhZrP4OUzMv1wuOIB7nrfzMZxk9bdOOknSe29FyGC2E8QJW5KqhIctr09eYe ObclzZiMiim3IRAWhTCAFwOI6JHfSKOj8n5smExhpOJMnu4FJb6iHNyp+pEvIVJrJGj2TEZ1I 7/zsCDVloJZKB5x4+dMspC6pZGekSblaB7OpImfuM8nkiLmEp9zGYSTA1FNEzwcSDM4CPPYdO N6mxD8jVtv+3U48sMc1QsAMDOldVcEcXp5ftLyixJh54Onv9gY/4liQgE8qmAVai6mPEBy+HA kYBA8U1puXSyswe6HMH4mHx3lTr0MSVIJ2KuOwYymbAwgBrV3Cn6EyCzqCAMu69pC2Hk51uW2 jCrRuwpuDuUzvcpYRsbxN62fG8ntUq9/WP5xKxryJqT7GVWCMcSx15npr4AW28GcKIlNaWw3q NRb06Dp5B56WP+B7caoFB5twF9d61fD3o2MY6Mj0wOQ7c+5wHmEZxZ2rh+IEJo4iRGGO44TFv nTK6ClnAOgjeLHmo7ZQL6yo95Iik27HYMkHILbhvE5C+90yxGe1Kt331+jJLAQyl2pt+KgaoC hX5fuBFz19Id1o= Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Comments on L4S drafts X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:04:07 -0000 Hi Jonathan, > On Jul 19, 2019, at 22:44, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 19 Jul, 2019, at 4:06 pm, Black, David = wrote: >>=20 >> To be clear on what I have in mind: >> o Unacceptable: All traffic marked with ECT(1) goes into the L4S = queue, independent of what DSCP it is marked with. >> o Acceptable: There's an operator-configurable list of DSCPs = that support an L4S service - traffic marked with ECT(1) goes into the = L4S queue if and only if that traffic is also marked with a DSCP that is = on the operator's DSCPs-for-L4S list. >=20 > I take it, in the latter case, that this increases the cases in which = L4S endpoints would need to detect that they are not receiving L4S = signals, but RFC-3168 signals. The current lack of such a mechanism = therefore remains concerning. For comparison, SCE inherently retains = such a mechanism by putting the RFC-3168 and high-fidelity signals on = different ECN codepoints. >=20 > So I'm pleased to hear that the L4S team will be at the hackathon with = a demo setup. Hopefully we will be able to obtain comparative test = results, using the same test scripts as we use on SCE, and also insert = an RFC-3168 single queue AQM into their network to demonstrate what = actually happens in that case. I think that the results will be = illuminating for all concerned. What I really would like to see, how L4S endpoints will deal = with post-bottleneck ingress shaping by an RFC3168 -compliant FQ-AQM. I = know the experts here deems this not even a theoretical concern, but I = really really want to see data, that L4S flows will not crowd out the = more reactive RFC3168 flows in that situation. This is the set-up quite = a number of latency sensitive end-users actually use to "debloat" the = internet and it would be nice to have real data showing that this is not = a concern. Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane