From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780BA3B29E for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id xADFaGWq044440; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:36:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id xADFaGIC044439; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:36:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <201911131536.xADFaGIC044439@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <8736esoy00.fsf@toke.dk> To: "Toke H?iland-J?rgensen" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:36:16 -0800 (PST) CC: Luca Muscariello , "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, ECN-Sane , Rich Brown X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] Meanwhile, over on NANOG... 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, 13 Nov 2019 15:36:22 -0000 > Luca Muscariello writes: > > > TCP anycast fails in this case and I would not blame the load balancer for > > that. > > Some people will have a different opinion on that. > > > > The current Internet just does not support well these use cases. > > > > At the same time this DNS service is supposed to be used in a different > > way. So we may even blame the user? Toke in this case ? > > > > DNS anycast works as long as it uses UDP. > > The IP address returned by the resolver should be unicast and TCP should > > run over unicast addresses. > > > > Toke, Looks like you are doing an HTTP GET directly toward an anycast > > address. This is where things are supposed to break and they break. > > I was just using 1.1.1.1 as a convenient example because it's easy to > type. I get the same behaviour to an actual web site hosted on > Cloudflare (which is how I discovered it in the first place). Cloudflare > makes heavy use of anycast, including to its HTTP endpoints. > > > If you traceroute over unicast addresses you should see the load > > balancer providing stickiness. > > As I replied to Rod, the non-stickiness was indeed user error on my > part. The problem is that the load balancer is hashing on headers > including the ECN bits. > > I guess I'll go reply to the NANOG thread... :) While your over dealing with the Operators, could you get a few of them to show up on tsvwg and say how bad an idea using ECT(1) as a traffic classifier for admission to a L4S service is? It is that group of people that has the greatest experience with how you can not trust end nodes in how to treat traffic, especially when that treatment MAY have some form of advantage, no matter how trivial that advantage. We need this group to be vocal, or L4S is going to end up doing just that, and it is the NOG's that are gona get hurt. > -Toke -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org