Re: [Ecn-sane] BBRv3 ecn_low per-route feature and the CE confusion

[Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2877 bytes --]

On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 16:21 +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Pete,
> 
> 
> > On Nov 28, 2023, at 13:57, Pete Heist via Ecn-sane
> > <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Regarding the per-route ecn_low feature in BBRv3:
> > https://github.com/google/bbr/blob/v3/README.md#introducing-the-ecn_low-per-route-feature
> > 
> > When set, any incoming CE marks from an ecn_low flagged route will
> > be
> > treated as an L4S/RFC9331 CE, while CE marks from routes without
> > that
> > flag will be treated as a regular RFC3168 CE.
> 
> 	I am probably blind, but looking at
> https://github.com/google/bbr/blob/v3/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c
> I do not see this fall back to a rfc3168 compliant response, as far
> as I read this this is DCTCP or nothing... 
> Or did you just mean that BBRv3 will treat CE just like BBRv1 and
> silently ignore it?

TBH, I hadn't read the code but I think you're right. The doc makes it
sound like enabling ECN support could be done with or without the
ecn_low feature, implying that it would react properly to either type
of CE. It appears to still ignore CE though unless ecn_low is flagged,
and other conditions are met. So yes, L4S/DCTCP response or bust.

Same result though, this confusion is harmful to the ECN field.

Pete

> > Obviously this is
> > problematic, as the two CE marks mean very different things, and
> > outside of closed environments, there's no reliable way to know
> > which
> > type of CE you're receiving. The consequences of confusing them
> > range
> > from massive self-induced bloat, to driving competing traffic in
> > the
> > same queue down to minimum cwnd. The solution here is to just punt,
> > so
> > at least tests and demos can be made to work.
> 
> 	The per-route feature looks like a desirable safety... as
> does the default 5ms rtt "low-pass", where IIUC ECN will only be
> evaluated if the RTT is below 5ms...
> 
> 
> > This isn't a problem with BBR. The problem is, we've started an
> > experiment [RFC9331] that redefines the meaning of CE in a way
> > that's
> > incompatible with existing RFC3168 middleboxes. This feature in BBR
> > is
> > just a reflection of that. CCA developers are now tasked with
> > somehow
> > deciding which type of CE they're seeing.
> > 
> > Speaking of ecn "sane", does anyone else see this as not? :) and as
> > a
> > problem that needs solving?
> 
> 	Yes, however I assume this will solve it self, as is this
> usage of CE is over-promising and under-delivering, so I do not see
> this "winning the internet" in spite of the amount of thrust is put
> behind it...
> 
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
> 
> > 
> > Pete
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecn-sane mailing list
> > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
> 


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]