From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 E6E813B29E for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:47:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1588153608; bh=pX0Fqk8vAy6IxyzOdCeKfG0DpdHme803c3QZV6uh7RY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=PQoQmrHhHQ5aSEdePsQOa8gjmzvoTbNzDzfTJLzB+sC5PeLpNvcSoApMPtf2xLMv9 yuPm9um3TB/lWLJK6MKMDDtLzx6mTW5TB+Ry0ldFmCLeAspUyD6PDR6FNztx4p0Fwx vQNAlFdQxKHeYlxS8/kYSmkhphDbBiOe9033R7q4= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [10.11.12.16] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N1OXZ-1j1VFT1oPT-012mQ8; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:46:48 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <6d925e3b-2781-0fb1-6936-7a6c006b9a21@bobbriscoe.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:46:47 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , ECN-Sane , tsvwg IETF list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <117EA22C-6C9B-47E6-9454-35C181A0A2B3@gmx.de> References: <6d925e3b-2781-0fb1-6936-7a6c006b9a21@bobbriscoe.net> To: Bob Briscoe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:rUdWN1gUSK80wDsLTsOHJzo9AKABKtSeF8U1+UaOOIXp7fHw713 QBpTUpp8jhbs8QTjZrR/UqeccLZ+UgB5za2Hw0bUYqKCeejK0n7MjpuOzOuoYQiuDA3+jKn 4isx+BjIwMi32n3mFv+1Mbmq/Z/BB1barfQkjVZtzf6eiwWOl3wucLMdsekD7Y6I/GIUhTJ 4O1Bs3kHNU4JF1OKOOOhA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:39owUjnbEn0=:YzoHWlyIGUxQLGf0BjDuyi ZXBFKxcyab4RXuG7uA7zuTwwPcXTbkPtsSP3sFRtsn7lejLN9BKMpmWR6eaaXfKBIeTbJO8nD D1cGCF0nVJk24eYRj75j8mXO38DlNzmVXTqpwPap6/26O1em8nVWJM/rfIeYmBKrD7XkqHqUq eytOTC8/Hy8fKx76d7ZkPcdyW6EOaonHOsC1CPz2mF34MAB2yvN8+PrBzXmNTSHLXMUZGHiK4 43GQn6RsifGZapTMY/tSqsI2IxfIkYmhkEWIdw7Qu5RXptxsyNiaYJZQ7eAIXo+AXHGlq0fdj Jm6YHFMLPbShfTsAgzkPNHxfnSAMoKp2MlSn5STiwTW8e4heqSpDb0tC/lXD9ncc+ZGI8FW7Z BFQY3EjVKSr6s152ML1SiMFKQBulFpSbnodgkWo9UeK5NjsAK1BeNlLbU8YtLnAqOqJYI9gRP gGtDkOZA/F1V+0IbRtWetOkmpneVK3hepw7YC8apfG/Dvz3SgovbkMf5R9X+E3v4uRBzt+cKV TpFQc4LJSeIAu988K4FsUQ5aPx7NAEOiRtDnjw+xDMogXdk3ZGnJSqHbOh584tlHTlQsVDZxy Z403HEtGEeR7OR+dquYcFjextjnVPbEUkirz/Xb3ylW1AECjzmrMOOzJ15hmBeAFqVdVj10Mw AD58a0QRa7H/A/6OB8jn4uA36asDcG5TZyH5uRRBuUtCI3/BKo3CPqv8V+c+r06qgYHyAUZ7A yXkWbGhi05sHenPvKikTl9dXP3WRVRH4VRFsIf4yVZI2e0VKkJum/6cfs7pLfgqvuouyO4rCd 9Ndt42izSqeUZQMEoMF4y/NmT2UiEH0NOEl1He3pF8Ps9OHub8D0OM3m63Ksv/l1eMa/HObJe Htq3nioC686mjKyU3f+9vjK3BQMhVAvBO+ZQbi7w1mpGNqxKgcvFFQQE/Esn4LKNiyCF7JWZ4 c+jRu/jrc1QgALiq1KpK1MFyBJqXnGRNyGPXZOZQP3HobmsanOiu0gmznDxrAm1vP5Raf5bvb k1lxz/cGUPrzFkH73DxhDX7e+bJu36/Ds5WgMDUY5dOQKRqaJ9dUr49s/+ZxcCuuQlPUrBlGi ozG/21DRnu/boFlCiljzIxzkffMzMFP5AQ0MJ3A1Vv2jkGsRsUhoCxVPHrEqWmlVlsG7b8ggg ArPYCYHfS4yUx81VxZTNls98eVi9xAcAoQKUbg1W0CD5PtkC3u4LET39pvbdzvkrLPZ/d13be 5L0UyX6OJsFLUl4i99Rs7/iTwZHqtbjtSt+XKo6aAGWMqq0cCgDCjMFyHDRo= Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Fwd: my backlogged comments on the ECT(1) interim call 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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:47:32 -0000 Hi Bob, > On Apr 29, 2020, at 11:31, Bob Briscoe wrote: >=20 > Dave, >=20 > Please don't tar everything with the same brush. Inline... >=20 > On 27/04/2020 20:26, Dave Taht wrote: >> just because I read this list more often than tsvwg. >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Dave Taht >> Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:24 PM >> Subject: my backlogged comments on the ECT(1) interim call >> To: tsvwg IETF list >> Cc: bloat >>=20 >>=20 >> It looks like the majority of what I say below is not related to the >> fate of the "bit". The push to take the bit was >> strong with this one, and me... can't we deploy more of what we >> already got in places where it matters? >>=20 >> ... >>=20 >> so: A) PLEA: =46rom 10 years now, of me working on bufferbloat, = working >> on real end-user and wifi traffic and real networks.... >>=20 >> I would like folk here to stop benchmarking two flows that run for a = long time >> and in one direction only... and thus exclusively in tcp congestion >> avoidance mode. >=20 > [BB] All the results that the L4S team has ever published include = short flow mixes either with or without long flows. > 2020: = http://folk.uio.no/asadsa/ecn-fbk/results_v2.2/full_heatmap_rrr/ > 2019: = http://bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_journal_draft20190726.pdf#sub= section.4.2 > 2019: = https://www.files.netdevconf.info/f/febbe8c6a05b4ceab641/?dl=3D1 > 2015: = http://bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_preprint.pdf#subsection.7.2 >=20 > I think this implies you have never actually looked at our data, which = would be highly concerning if true. [SM] Bob, please take the time to read what Dave is asking for = here, it is rather specific, and as far as I can tell has never been = tested in all the years. >=20 > Regarding asymmetric links, as you will see in the 2015 and 2019 = papers, our original tests were conducted over Al-Lu's broadband testbed = with real ADSL lines, real home routers, etc. When we switched to a = Linux testbed, we checked we were getting identical results to the = testbed that used real broadband kit, but I admit we omitted to emulate = the asymmetric upstream. As I said, we can add asymmetric tests back = again, and we should. [SM] You tested an asymmetric link, with no AQM on the uplink = and also no saturating traffic on the uplink, this is not the test Dave = has been championing for years a fully saturating load by 4 or more = capacity-seeking flows per direction.=20 As far as I can tell in all of the testing you did, you never = got around to test this for end-user rather important condition: the = whole family/group is using the internet access link to its max. It is = exactly that condition where latencies typically go through the roof and = people resort to crude behavioral solutions (do not game while someone = vide-conferences, and the like). The pure fact that you never tested this really IMHO = demonstrates that magnitude of testing is no good proxy for quality of = testing, especially since Dave repeatedly asked for bi-directionally = saturating loads to be tested. Best Regards Sebastian