From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D843CB35 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:00:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1553511654; bh=Dy+k78Wm9lzDGOCankJuwjUppZnjjXAec6JBacSAtXs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:To; b=kJ/CPvXUxoneHa3K2Wx8bsbDs+R8d8fyTisQ14zrVQb9cKyDcqvbZ4WJxi4qAwE6U SpSVaPHFrJNssMHoOidc2o0N6qQ21skcjnWmPf6eGB++COXp10zkhfnzfhrDRPC0ut 3lgxyP3bEZsymO0joJBI7Q4nHxtRF0XTWtKqWfGk= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJXEd-1h70px0Fz9-0031d4 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:00:54 +0100 From: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Message-Id: <4E723926-557F-4EFD-8DA1-DD1F24BD9BB3@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:00:52 +0100 To: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:vwEPx114gKuobdlYVfg4R7PBmMeGnfk7cHlD5OPaOjfCEEY5BYT 3/YP7OADQBiMAvt1PGT+NowiGyzuRVprLY1TkMZKKndDA73iADtVMKsmfXyWJeFsofZSYZt gAhR+pg99vt+k16/T/KQkln4V93HWB2YgGkF5tgubYp37kNOpHR+kPGBtBrLGnpEqC7CQ4K 3KpOuYYCQXFKUZy+lnA6A== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:QgpyTbfSjPo=:UTrPlWht5R18U7/zn6PGC1 3hvyhev45+UkO6ddPTKXjFz9ovdh/E7GZAxiJFTrttspF3rA7srW1IrjqJ0RV4DrfYhk2mpoZ SRHVwG/HQYs7tsN8H9uYET/G2PS9oLYB5bXVcfSFoEa48vA0uR7QgAD2FO4yVa7/xYQbmvEXl Clm0nsTiTJDxc7bNWm2/+l4X97wNACMJHPNpHwWy+BVC7XBjth0fsy0JPIDZfAW2bDausqFa4 zdp6gtc5Uo8qKR9eR8hFyPmgcxFb4Hpa8IrTDHp/cAYEAC7+xdU6vlJwt4s7KKrPkMB51CTkd MbGrwpR3xXrHZUF6WR+KFzSE9BA8kSYyXtMObpqEEuZZhfH3y7GDlxrH2D/Jin5tCBgXeZIrj MEeRGfPBpENiF2+vVXaaSPTZJ5OjyTNL5O5rs//SipADikcp5qn1mbFDEEMwWNNSWtEYTFT/G S6V6uGI8JeFv8BlkDHvk3tatnVJEoZn4N8t5ahde4SsQhQSYqqImibM2ejLGzbB0Kk9qmJenp G/pqb3SwbR3d1urgcbqLCYz9j4L/vcLQ312im5waalankJ55dBnEV9EfsHEh9FBZoOHWB5pyn t2rfcjA6g1FO5PL8o86KVhU3x0dtp6UPRdmlBhAvPeso3nrRZhPlZWHEvNK/4yvkqH05+cT/r IJExbgbr7WKUzGJkbsAjfiTKjn59uXzHG2LwkBJy8N8lQnvheEtWIduK3HqK9Ask1NPsrQJaT CmgXosdLneHDAxk0ELUVVXPA4ODT0qX1ZtHalTqTaH+2QF5tXzXAjE2MOFvi4yzZOCNAVE9sz gWLtPzuzvUfzcUVaSxwXQmI5DX3J5UmlRtd8EG+HCrugChw0Oe49gtik3MwbauB0f1t/RciMs E0mF3Z7wJLtGczY2+iUFz8Aw/ezlXA/1OmPPM5WkkV7hkzAziSa5DdgOGO7/9mWqTwqjUUc09 uHzvXlznLZw== Subject: [Ecn-sane] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-03#page-21 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:00:55 -0000 How is the following going to work in the light of the light of LLLLS = being advertised as requiring only a single "bit" identifier and no = further classification: "8.2. 'Latency Friendliness' The L4S service does rely on = self-constraint - not in terms of limiting rate, but in terms of = limiting latency (burstiness). It is hoped that standardisation of = dynamic behaviour (cf. TCP slow-start) and self-interest will be = sufficient to prevent transports from sending excessive bursts of L4S = traffic, given the application's own latency will suffer most from such = behaviour. Whether burst policing becomes necessary remains to be seen. = Without it, there will be potential for attacks on the low latency of = the L4S service. However it may only be necessary to apply such policing = reactively, e.g. punitively targeted at any deployments of new bursty = malware." I fail to see how punitive action can be targeted to offending flows = without using more that ECT(1), unless those are clearly identified = (maybe https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt can be leveraged here ;) ). = If low latency low loss is to be the future of the internet, I feel, the = L4S architecture should start taking the often hostile environment the = internet provides into account, unless the whole idea is to build a = LLLLS conduit from the nearest DC into all homes only, which if all = operated by the same ISP might actually be sufficiently robust against = attacks, but also will fall short of replacing the current internet with = L4S in the future.... Best Regards Sebastian=