From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBF5F3B29E for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 07:53:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qpClK1w/IVwc/SVw+pK23642qfw53lfM0IOr21MVopw=; b=J3Dvl9U6ZBDvtbMH0Xygr2Bfy1 2JAIgzzL0zY5rm5nzktxNqSH4VDNa3DxP9lqaU+JOsLMSK1GccEGziY/DNVLN+bvBiKXU3nu/Y1US tCjcm/yJ2yehQbSPSTGgciR3MGuWzQ2/c6QOxsN6Kv62Rlq1xpzxaKhqnOA7gFAlPUmzOJitGMBR+ lTDsJmwEKYvRTHwMhLMuQ/gtzDZVm6/ILWAo96x0r9DD/iTyfWm4KyWqcW+0jLTNs3483jfDvLB9d YZ/CkvQ7s3GJvQauOhgwOpZwroXAb8/6cdoH1t5y47PxW8QgW5k3qZolAPdT8J4tiTPc4ZzLEuXn1 cjeLXA9w==; Received: from modemcable186.232-83-70.mc.videotron.ca ([70.83.232.186]:60266 helo=[192.168.0.161]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hpAPa-0000fP-LE; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:53:54 +0100 To: Sebastian Moeller , Jonathan Morton Cc: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , "Black, David" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" , Dave Taht References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <1238A446-6E05-4A55-8B3B-878C8F39FC75@gmail.com> <17B33B39-D25A-432C-9037-3A4835CCC0E1@gmail.com> <52F85CFC-B7CF-4C7A-88B8-AE0879B3CCFE@gmail.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com> <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de> From: Bob Briscoe Message-ID: <22af0671-fdd0-0953-fc96-55b34beb0be9@bobbriscoe.net> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:53:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.bufferbloat.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:17:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Comments on L4S drafts 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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:53:56 -0000 Sebastian, On 19/07/2019 23:03, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > > >> On Jul 19, 2019, at 22:44, Jonathan Morton wrote: >> So I'm pleased to hear that the L4S team will be at the hackathon with a demo setup. Hopefully we will be able to obtain comparative test results, using the same test scripts as we use on SCE, and also insert an RFC-3168 single queue AQM into their network to demonstrate what actually happens in that case. I think that the results will be illuminating for all concerned. > What I really would like to see, how L4S endpoints will deal with post-bottleneck ingress shaping by an RFC3168 -compliant FQ-AQM. I know the experts here deems this not even a theoretical concern, but I really really want to see data, that L4S flows will not crowd out the more reactive RFC3168 flows in that situation. This is the set-up quite a number of latency sensitive end-users actually use to "debloat" the internet and it would be nice to have real data showing that this is not a concern. Both teams brought their testbeds, and as of yesterday evening, Koen and Pete Heist had put the two together and started the tests Jonathan proposed. Usual problems: latest Linux kernel being used has introduced a bug, so need to wind back. But progressing. Nonetheless, altho it's included in the tests, I don't see the particular concern with this 'Cake' scenario. How can "L4S flows crowd out more reactive RFC3168 flows" in "an RFC3168-compliant FQ-AQM". Whenever it would be happening, FQ would prevent it. To ensure we're not continually being blown into the weeds, I thought the /only/ concern was about RFC3168-compliant /single-queue/ AQMs. Bob > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > >> - Jonathan Morton >> _______________________________________________ >> Ecn-sane mailing list >> Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/