From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 8908D3B29D for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id b18so14271521wrn.6 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:43:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bOJ0NU1x8hUAgim5VJtUpKYwpPDACPIshwjZADtiTNY=; b=JBA2U70MB/NVs+OFtbNEFiOMeBhupCFsYIdsMDkgizT2dHADn4txKphB4riUI4op69 SsAkV90o+6W0lirzrcbmFbRfMP/aZaCX/sCTszcEVrB/tyelOdb2ygRV9ftXF9DHJsQ1 6KiVe0p7Oenex+dV/fFM4BuzkGLzIeUMr59epC+il458vgW0u+mXFzYf3/GZU0N6gA4C lURQeE0eemXPX5Gf1X6KMleINmhCCBA3W2ZyQQf2aRolnttnJTfT9Z25oeALNS7IMWrL /s/TXs7VgOcwUfPdPerL1qXsBnK63NyWprxfHfWIBFF5vksd2vJdS1tEU4hwCV1WkmCX /RUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bOJ0NU1x8hUAgim5VJtUpKYwpPDACPIshwjZADtiTNY=; b=NsB3hfe5OLnDK4TQkkiI8SEcHGiCYsBOhv9273zC76TjHq202wEeVBpAHCPpUPhaGS uBkqS+yt93oVOJIsz/fYBD0VbPwhOezaRfJrDypAJ+G5s/6PuLjWnTWY3H24U9UMI198 Si1T0v1Gm9LRmSt/EFGdTBt1dWxttUyTvKCfb/DQYM/TPur4z1HWgXtH10+2YyIxAtRa LdtrKrZjAD4obCWUaPteYv8zrRy/8cM3Tkof38FbKv485dNGWJkQ0GdaQHRvsChTABz1 msHg0p4N64hATph+kHlXR9i11ctTxRGQNvrULN+dzFB/2QWZcL/IonuSv/Yj0zxnK0tU 7TcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QRLv1rn8+yEGv5TPC/UYC2+iygt2w0qO71lUZxUV7ftT2Rjqb /KMNRj9Spz7I5TqXHMWb0FGwvA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkmWLrWR7iW9rlWU3sTcEZ8gQ8IKoRC1Q2D4OXzijDrmybA6YCNFOkKCf+pbZP8AWFg9EWVg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a81:: with SMTP id s1mr27098058wru.401.1615279429767; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:43:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.88] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v9sm23370781wrn.86.2021.03.09.00.43.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:43:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <09ec86122a89989aa3fed5ed25a8fb34ce033f30.camel@heistp.net> From: Pete Heist To: "Holland, Jake" Cc: ECN-Sane Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:43:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] IETF 110 quick summary 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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 08:43:50 -0000 On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 02:13 +0000, Holland, Jake wrote: > The presentations were pretty great, but they were really short > on time.  In the chat a person or 2 was surprised about the way > L4S will impact NECT competing traffic when competing in a queue. > I agree some of the people who have tuned out the discussion are > learning things from these presentations, and I thought Jonathan's > slot was a good framing of the real question, and Pete's study was > also very helpful. I'm glad to hear that. At least it adds something to your work before, from a different vantage point, albeit much smaller. I know that studies from entirely disinterested parties would be good too, but that might the hard part, they're disinterested! :) > I seem to recall a thread in the wake of Apple's ECN enabling about > one of the Linux distros considering turning ECN on by default for > outbound connections, in which one of them found that it completely > wrecked his throughput, and so it got tabled with unfortunately > no pcap posted. > > Any recollection of where that was?  I was guessing it might be > one of the misbehaviors from the network that Apple encountered. That is odd and would be good to know about. I enabled ECN on my Linux laptop a long time ago and haven't noticed a problem that I'm aware of. I wish the distros would reconsider enabling it, unless there are active reasons it shouldn't be deployed, but they may now just be in a holding pattern on it. > I also thought Apple had a sysctl to disable the hold-downs and > always use ECN in spite of the heuristics, did that not work? > > -Jake > > On 3/8/21, 3:57 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote: > > Thx very much for the update. I wanted to note that > preseem does a lot of work with wisps and I wish they'd share more > data on it, as well as our ever present mention of free.fr. > > Another data point is that apple's early rollout of ecn was kind of > a failure, and there are now so many workarounds in the os for it as > to make coherent testing impossible. > > I do wish there was more work on ecn enabling bbr, as presently > it does negotiate ecn often and then completely ignores it. You can > see this in traces from dropbox in particular. > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:47 PM Pete Heist wrote: > > > > Just responding to Dave's ask for a quick IETF 110 summary on ecn- > > sane, > > after one day. We presented the data on ECN at MAPRG > > ( > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations/__;!!GjvTz_vk!AsneqOLeLWeNxzyWItOxlVbVQYefAMLslNpK4U9NEHw0dfUI0vDG7O07G3f1kzw$ > >   > > ). It basically just showed that ECN is in use by endpoints (more > > as a > > proportion across paths than a proportion of flows), that RFC3168 > > AQMs > > do exist out there and are signaling, and that the ECN field can be > > misused. There weren't any questions, maybe because we were the > > last to > > present and were already short on time. > > > > We also applied that to L4S by first explaining that risk is the > > product of severity and prevalence, and tried to increase the > > awareness > > about the flow domination problem when L4S flows meet non-L4S flows > > (ECN or not) in a 3168 queue. Spreading this information seems to > > go > > slowly, as we're still hearing "oh really?", which leads me to > > believe > > 1) that people are tuning this debate out, and 2) it just takes a > > long > > time to comprehend, and to believe. It's still our stance that L4S > > can't be deployed due to its signalling design, or if it is, the > > end > > result is likely to be more bleaching and confusion with the DS > > field. > > > > There was a question I'd already heard before about why fq_codel is > > being deployed at an ISP, so I tried to cover that over in tsvwg. > > Basically, fq_codel is not ideal for this purpose, lacking host and > > subscriber fairness, but it's available and effective, so it's a > > good > > start. > > > > Wednesday's TSVWG session will be entirely devoted to L4S drafts. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecn-sane mailing list > > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane__;!!GjvTz_vk!AsneqOLeLWeNxzyWItOxlVbVQYefAMLslNpK4U9NEHw0dfUI0vDG7O07L2Cfk-Y$ > >   > > > > -- > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over > public > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > dave@taht.net  CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane__;!!GjvTz_vk!AsneqOLeLWeNxzyWItOxlVbVQYefAMLslNpK4U9NEHw0dfUI0vDG7O07L2Cfk-Y$ >   >