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 187C43B2A4 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:07:24 -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 129I7LdX078191; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:07:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 129I7LYx078190; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:07:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <202103091807.129I7LYx078190@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <9cbf2c365c0ad635b6f08311d35e0681aa173af7.camel@petri-meat.com> To: Steven Blake Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:07:21 -0800 (PST) CC: Jonathan Morton , 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] 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 18:07:25 -0000 > On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 12:31 -0500, Steven Blake wrote: > > > Their whole safety plan depends on the claim that Classic RFC 3168 > > ECN > > is not deployed (except in fq_codel on the edge; who cares? they can > > patch their code). If that were the case, it would make more sense > > for > > them to try to move classic ECN to historic and redefine ECT(0) to > > signal L4S traffic (ala DCTCP). > > Actually, that is the ideal outcome. ECT(0) signals ECT-Capable, ECT(1) > and CE signal two levels of congestion. In other words, SCE everywhere. > > Maybe that is an argument that you can throw at them: if it is safe to > ignore classic ECN, might as well move straight to SCE with non-ECT > traffic shunted off to a separate queue(s). Would you be willing to float that infront of them? We have discussed this internal between Jonothan, Pete and myself, it is a viable solution. And iirc our discussion resulted in this ECT(0) being used to signal ECT or SCE treatment to be rather low risk. Right now any time we (SCE) try to float anything its shot down without any due consideration or discussion, sadly. > Regards, > // Steve -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org