From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 5DD8D3B29E for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 03:39:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1564558776; bh=drykea5MHYWtwBzWUXU+UPyzaJ5tqidHhOivjzMdIrg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=aM9sKNRY+mLTuloM/ssL+zj+uDpnCISSASJaTUC3y+bhs1lWO31fghEB+7FEfydEq LAVLyZ1PxSVbFgkLvsdcosbI6OVt494BV2JdrG+aBBR8w09NlnHYkAe1ihaUWYKEVM 15frEK527H84Qx+7eDYUOmxpiaWnDWtCNSwXnf7A= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [10.11.12.32] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5csW-1iH1Lk3HuS-00xZbI; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:39:36 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:39:36 +0200 Cc: Jonathan Morton , ECN-Sane Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <575457E9-A377-44F0-A8CE-7B15FAB48533@gmx.de> References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:8pbfudKOBQk6UO08zMfDMOWAVNapCc345m+R9t2Gv1OvmJIGh51 WqOOXPmBlB7M4kv2RaUtU3HdCkBrXFfXOtXA7nRY3erSZkCs2g/Z0uRcaEUrH0IjghScaCj LV9jZ54f+GozlcUqwj58/+BpQgxSmuqhb8TtF9HRs/CmtiVUggjeVOkLIl7Vn0Awkl+HXZI rS/OakptZD2hvIjyKPhqg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:w5qqE6rOsDQ=:zqh5A8uAphWDdV35kEQB8x pmep7vWaYyCgPFEiFQ0Vlyny+lP9N8nBOZ3Kc3zLeYDv49vrTXl1MPP3BGcd8xEyGzh5vYn8k B46gritYOxL8Et4HM+L7ly/SFxkPHqC+DR7pJM7u7EyBPJPYEvJs149AqG4rcs8Q+tvJN3Cb8 UBry4w6JYX84cHg9KhQ13Esjf77i2QBtUidfnkOf2IPY/AbvdZUfYaK7SvJ3SyUJZe21sGhfd pG/PMqnpUqP3DuG14DahNAA9yOo9JyxPSey8ZEC54Bc97MMx3C5fsTyGTipkLEllBRweieEIL OCCMpT9QkMc4VVH2OYB4xjf02SSOfvgw8foIHphnKlvVwFBfRRWE1FPu/F1U7+DMd6qvJECcf qQSQpkLA6/ItQ4OCePtpzRI6x3kON92mn5XBUo3YLxWrD14O0J6qcRscExs+jBjAWlCOTbXJQ GbG6ZIo3PwbPf9x162ehwMARohutQleWBp7/bcHXD/d+CxArl3Yy170r8XUdin15qpQhAUuFU tlu+O3N6uZ4Ip1VTCb5k+hp7FVIZFR+vXktaCu/g0Vxwpqq5TM4Aigfa1TbAW8qzpOh+6ebrg dTaS7LLJMI0vrkiuWLuPLf1FVLabssJIa420ou73+tsVKdO4tPP9Xf+SIs69gtAeds1b1I+65 G0HZEn3lPKF74wTLsGcpsmdUrOkBhti0TUNviY37JWNm1mYNzZOslLUrRL5aUhIAO1U3TvGJP XxQyklhvHj+BbUr080dI+U3ZqHZt0cfVJmKeAo+XoQavI2A+dll04iEpJk+iJ9BSQ2svRb92V WXOu52bxjmsWbTqju/DVTwF6pk9NGEwUK9gDoajsVPaQJdnY61ls4f8TSJEE4FQiXFE0kfz0+ zaD85Tfrf01MtZZx+Kbc4EqPtk4MjhY/nKHPktP4ZLWMvwAx6sZJEtLB2Nm7RCZfSOkXdqQ/A 0D34Stq8LbEeu5Iu/DhRiUnxuSuDka/JArEUXwtJnpONvOxJWXm+ldw7susadm8MXxtO0Fvu+ GrUGB9IyF4HAIJ0kE2ifGMRm8wQczSUt8XieFFVKRrdEYrPW6X3wyUiAzSYdU+O1GYwjtBdPe uDw317lgopaqc8= Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] tsvwg preso for sce is up 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, 31 Jul 2019 07:39:38 -0000 Hi Dave, > On Jul 31, 2019, at 04:03, Dave Taht wrote: > [...] > Also bob is perpetually making a point about applications needing to > briefly exceed their fair share, I'd like to make a point > about how quickly an application can grab more share when it appears > with shorter rtts possible on the link. Quadratic response > times mean a lot.... The obvious problem with Bob's rationale is that his idealized = behavior immediately turn against the user, if it is "everything else" = in Bob's example that the user actually would like to have priority then = his lack of euqal-bandwidth enforcement will actually be harmful.=20 Personally, I believe that it is better to do, equal-share as = default and let the user's override that on a if-needed-basis instead of = having Bob's anything goes world (which unfortunately is the current = reality), as equal share is easy to understand and to predict, and we = have ample proof now that FQ (sqm-scripts in OpenWrt) for the home = network is an improvement over the what-ever mode of the default = internet experience.=20 In other words, Bob seemingly puts too much trust in the = benevolence of all endpoints. This reminds me yet again on the = discussions I had decades ago about the differences/advantages between = cooperative and/over preemptive multitasking: theoretically cooperative = multitasking will be superior to preemptive one but assumes both = benevolent processes and effectively perfect information not only about = a processe's own resource demands but also about all other running (and = to be started) processes; I end this tangent by noting that preemptive = multitasking more or less won this battle with only nice use of = cooperative multitasking surviving.=20 I believe the same rational to be applicable for AQMs, since not = all endpoints are benevolent (see the arms race of CDNs with the initial = window size), we are better off to treat all of them as "hostile" and = enforce a sane default policy; FQ being one of those sane policies that = already proved that they are worth their salt. I wonder whether it is = worth disscusing that point openly with Bob, though as it is partly a = matter of taste and subjective risk-aversion. > [...] > Convincing an entire market to take a 3x latency hit on normal traffic > so some other traffic can gain priority seems like an uphill climb. So far I fail to see L4S working for any other use-case than = "high-way" to a close DC, as I simply do not believe that the required = synchronization of remote senders to below-millisecond accuracy will = generally work over the internet (L$S basically assumes close to zero = RTT variations and the ability of OSs to actually dispatch packets with = =20 > I'd like to define terms better. "Ultra-low-latency" seems to mean sub > 1ms latency?, which fq achieves on 90+% of flows. "Ultra-low-latency" is perfect marketing-speak with very little = substance... Best Regards Sebastian=