A question from a bystander/ Why is the L4S proposal such a major fork that it needs wo be thought of as if it were an alternative to current IPv4 and IPv6 packets? Shouldn't all traffic be in this new class called scalable low loss low latency traffic? In a sense, the proposal seems to be like running two Internets (A and B) on the same cables. That seems control-theoretically unstable since neither one knows about the other, yet they share resources and influence the dynamics of each other. One would need to prove that they are compatible and cause performance to converge when used at the same time. If that's been answered, great. Remember, the IP datagram and routing layer is the single neck of the hourglass that regulates everything. -----Original Message----- From: "Dave Taht" Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 11:30am To: "ECN-Sane" Subject: [Ecn-sane] where the l4s ect1 takeover is documented It's in: Appendix B.1 of: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-02#appendix-B.1 Which is sort of like the vogons demolishing the internet for a cable industry bypass.. “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Dave, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Ecn-sane mailing list Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane