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 9FFEE3B29E for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:42:29 -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 xADFgMmq044463; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:42:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id xADFgMiO044462; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:42:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <201911131542.xADFgMiO044462@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <87tv77oklo.fsf@toke.dk> To: "Toke H?iland-J?rgensen" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:42:22 -0800 (PST) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Luca Muscariello , Rich Brown , ECN-Sane 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 15:42:29 -0000 > "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes: > > >> -t is the TOS value; so those two happen to correspond to ECT(1) and > >> ECT(0); and as you can see they go two different paths. Which would be > >> consistent with the SYN going one way and the data packets going > >> another. > > > > Perhaps Old enough that maybe they are treating that as TOS byte? > > > > Looks like you have nailed it though, someone has a broken hash. > > Yup, seems like it. Posted a writeup to the NANOG list in response to > the guy asking; it hasn't showed up in the archive, though, so I guess > it's still in the moderation queue. > > I think I'll write the whole thing up as a blog post as well, once it's > resolved. I'll see if I can get them to tell me which router make and > model is doing this. Yes, please do write it up some place. It would probably be sane to also start a list of "Things that have been found, (and fixed if true) the following brokeness regarding ECN/RFC3168 conformance of systems." Even without the make and model one can describe it as inproper hashing in ECMP routing equipment at foo. > Thanks everyone who helped with ideas etc! :) > > -Toke -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org