From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 7A4F83B29D for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id 7so14250645wrz.0 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:21:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=daBPN3h7t1Fml3/jNs9tjdUk9+8nsY15iOUq1URBHbw=; b=hwyeECM5+Q1g1avydslKaX/auSx7XXEFDsN4Cxitua/dEPdMTCJ9MUNObAvB4t/c0P dOdaTMvGH02TaqQBqERSCaeLaCj87S130jFRr0/AkYuLf2zX7MNHiFdEgkryeLccduSl 5yjLUBX+VkogGe7aKBKhwD+i77F+/rdgZOPegl6a1dkgCtL53Au6ZbOT0DMmjbPEFKqu 0UFjVvZiQ3P325YqttbGoXmdAfCvAC1ntrGMtY1nV+zI3/Fle5AZKt1OeNsqqZBPpY9o 9W9ac7xzCTnYKo8I+wqAIJi2tb2dZBYN+DXGsMgzbrSazKPeul/mg27UwbC/DmI7AeTr SDpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=daBPN3h7t1Fml3/jNs9tjdUk9+8nsY15iOUq1URBHbw=; b=XRZ6v0eI6glJbA/YYEAP/Iv/Xzmb8lDzpfg7FKKvaA0tYG8i5anGn+lHsA0/K8JXcl bXtRJH/pHLQHlZYy9b3aWzx5ZjAX8CwpT8Gb6LeLIsj/ySEPPbJ13o9b4c6h93OY9WPV rgCaBy2nkPmrt2AkW+Zt+jf3M5IS4wjfdjtTbv9gyBIJfGrr/Dj+evwuea4yLne0GyHG z5M1f4Y/Z7mqgVmd2KHrnO9f35E8gvaUnTEINdaRF5bmumm3fCOooDTpOjF2OqQggd6K yOWKnEwsstOF3QxsC58L7jUcNLwPHGK0cU9oDUQcFN1LAwKFNrE/8vK+io4akU9ETG19 5MxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Hva/HyNPe1e3KTFb26lcCJAomvG9OO+SFteEn+9nRgaetQFT4 TzYuoj8PQ71B8DG0Vz7+K8WkUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNgJMGFK/X7z7HPJEuTDhgSdvo7ZBPnMWFvUWPLDmANN9WO62F5VI8MvbqqNDvmjtqo76BlA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ce8a:: with SMTP id r10mr26642503wrn.17.1615278107974; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.88] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm22760107wra.66.2021.03.09.00.21.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:21:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7de003ac7f54c72da7b9a6976c1ab692ce93a04c.camel@heistp.net> From: Pete Heist To: Dave Taht Cc: ECN-Sane Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:21:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] IETF 110 quick summary 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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 08:21:49 -0000 On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 15:57 -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > Thx very much for the update. I wanted to note that > preseem does a lot of work with wisps and I wish they'd share more > data on it, as well as our ever present mention of free.fr. > > Another data point is that apple's early rollout of ecn was kind of > a failure, and there are now so many workarounds in the os for it as > to make coherent testing impossible. Is there any info on what way it was a failure, or what workarounds there are? > I do wish there was more work on ecn enabling bbr, as presently > it does negotiate ecn often and then completely ignores it. You can > see this in traces from dropbox in particular. I haven't tested BBR but briefly. I'd expect: - BBR harming itself through fq_codel as TCP RTT goes up, but if it also uses that as a signal to back off, I don't know the end result - Harm to competing traffic in a tunnel through fq_codel > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:47 PM Pete Heist wrote: > > > > Just responding to Dave's ask for a quick IETF 110 summary on ecn- > > sane, > > after one day. We presented the data on ECN at MAPRG > > ( > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations/ > > ). It basically just showed that ECN is in use by endpoints (more > > as a > > proportion across paths than a proportion of flows), that RFC3168 > > AQMs > > do exist out there and are signaling, and that the ECN field can be > > misused. There weren't any questions, maybe because we were the > > last to > > present and were already short on time. > > > > We also applied that to L4S by first explaining that risk is the > > product of severity and prevalence, and tried to increase the > > awareness > > about the flow domination problem when L4S flows meet non-L4S flows > > (ECN or not) in a 3168 queue. Spreading this information seems to > > go > > slowly, as we're still hearing "oh really?", which leads me to > > believe > > 1) that people are tuning this debate out, and 2) it just takes a > > long > > time to comprehend, and to believe. It's still our stance that L4S > > can't be deployed due to its signalling design, or if it is, the > > end > > result is likely to be more bleaching and confusion with the DS > > field. > > > > There was a question I'd already heard before about why fq_codel is > > being deployed at an ISP, so I tried to cover that over in tsvwg. > > Basically, fq_codel is not ideal for this purpose, lacking host and > > subscriber fairness, but it's available and effective, so it's a > > good > > start. > > > > Wednesday's TSVWG session will be entirely devoted to L4S drafts. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecn-sane mailing list > > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > > >