From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 3FD3D3BA8E; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hms-beagle2.lan ([77.189.129.198]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZhoi-1gdCam23Zs-00lV8V; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:23:56 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:23:53 +0100 Cc: "David P. Reed" , ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5074EF71-8715-401D-AE17-326E373B53D6@gmx.de> References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Q3DaXPql+ZuHgZGAJK4U9cAkb3sREvYJpO0Ts92R/zHCvDYaU56 ko6br5iZ7F4grg0iudjzlWajdRfaKyaZUs7CUg27QAbxHPgAzfmjpKZz7kyNj+6uxHeguDW gRLvovE0OBGqWF6SuayZl1BcgmJN0zgn00cxLBF4jW21YJ2aK4Dxmn3uDm0fI9H262/tDZ3 Fg79x7lVOfD04/MoKjFDg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:diZ4c1qMdP0=:fZljqlFDV7jdLd1QGK2v+t NAS9vOp/p36OSCp/9DkfGVdU8vUCEOMlSKyjxhcRH3VeB4fWOz/QUBpSN2QLTsJE3V3Np7U8X dArGmFbDCKNpLWgNCTJeOn5g3gW/rnoPakZ0kP6/AB5BEwktIdBmU1IqsPb5eu1KS5ll0tWIx 8ARuhlOlb1mAzFnqApO+bAysDSEcOhVfOkzLVq/2DCSCLZB1RvnrAqZArNvoV9QfXbwWN5h9d 8ZEkJ1g7gONTkOrnX2uHZ8jniwl4kFykc2JRErwZiSPxIfeqBLAV1j3Obx0L12h+D/5RFnI3j OWgeg09cKKIbSjXqu85CxSIVolaxCaZWLz3/xL85gzIRgc9cRXx6VTCp2+JMm5sHgjZUAKLUs Pi6We5h+gFguF1KhlCi3S5akFBjmPFdJazPt/RB1dykEwvCUB6DnoL4aEfQudISAxcQWa7Gpf hJSJrkWoBAp7UbcBZX0MOQy6R8qmVCyqceM1g+K4nV9DDbplOft38crWUKcHs/n04sGdGmHYB w6jbZN76C7EuOkCVmEcRa2CHTeDwKqK+SyaZtO3vUBreUltdtWy9fRzIrofJQvWfqj4QxMNbP La0WmMjYY4A6Hz+v0/KcRPQwEVoWYWPMcomEYTFBSn/OHQI1PcIEvuEUlDhVMRfoAz6khOVux RK1UTHLvuHwPnAfOu9dHXafSk0Cb2Oi7u9elL4mra00WIcXBLfSZDqux3Ds8OzEwO3+dMcf1Y fdgOWBQ5jrGxuEN78qvyuWY7cpfjee3SHAKCI1Q9J2wMvh7DHwHoLLMxLnXGmytivO8whnScC /nVQoiePxCR2Z1VO0OgWA0SujHeWukozv1TfEAQc/BfcZVNdihK0qnmMrLnELCt5esk5EzjgE QfLU6RmOhvSXFvmQceYjnTE/RXNmJWWm67noXgueChPtE3nD4iNihB5KhIegEK5zKpjc3VATJ YZWovVidvsQ== Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 19:24:00 -0000 Hi Mikael, > On Mar 15, 2019, at 19:36, Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: >=20 > On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, David P. Reed wrote: >=20 >> So if the responsible network engineers in the carriers cannot agree = on anything, IETF is wasting its time. >=20 > The IETF has already said that anything diffserv is domain-internal = only. I have joined the effort of the LE PHB and see if we can get some = kind of agreement and transparancy for a PHB that is aimed at customer = access only and "drop most of me and my pals at any sign of customer = access line congestion", and see if that can be agreed on. +1 >=20 > Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, = because it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment. >=20 > The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment = is typically a ddos magnet. Hence splitting it up, three for the current transport domain to = do with as it sees fit and 3 for signaling intent; this very much does = not give a guarantee that any intermediate hop will follow the intent, = but only make it possible for the endpoints to transmit intent. This = IMHO is completely compatible with a LE PHB and transports honoring that = request.=20 > See my emails on this topic on (this? other?) mailing lists where I = try to create a three class buffering system saying "LE gets 5%, BE and = 'everything-else' gets to split the difference". We can haggle over the numbers but that seems a) sane and b) = underspecified... >=20 > I even got pushback on this here, and then we're not even close to = people running large ISP networks who see ddos attacks happen hourly. >=20 > Saying L4S should "just use diffserv" is as constructive to say "go = away and pound a rock" or "we want that bit pattern so.. screw you". But just nodding expertly when they go and claim an unrelated = bit in the IP header for their separation l4s vs legacy (as if l4s would = be the end all of network design), and then having resorting to = modifying so-far not-deployed-at the edge DCTCP (instead of modifying = well-deployed TCP) because they already spent the one bit usable to = extend ECN for less binary congestion signaling in a backward-compatible = fashion... I might be wording things to strongly here, but that is the = general gist. >=20 > L4S has a much better possibility of actually getting deployment into = the wider Internet packet-moving equipment than anything being talked = about here. That is not a high bar to clear though... > Same with PIE as opposed to FQ_CODEL. I know it's might not be as = good, Debatable, and from my perspective this is the reason to talk = about it at all. > but it fits better into actual silicon Does it? > and it's being proposed by people who actually have better channels = into the people setting hard requirements. That would be great if the proposal would throw end-user like me = a bone instead of treating me as the product. It would also help if the = architectural RFC would not be so breathlessly = over-hyping/over-promising... But they really need end-points to switch = over to a neutered DCTCP before things start to make sense, so they = actually need to convince end-users and so far they are doing a terrible = job IMHO. But what do I know... >=20 > I suggest you consider joining them instead of opposing them. Join where? it pretty much looks like a "fait accompli" as they = do seem way past the design stages and seem pretty much crystallized in = what they see the path forward.=20 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se