From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 621EB3B29E for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:52:30 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1573660348; bh=mKqTM+ZqqhywPwMDHTZvz4IpdBW2/F34lScnUa/cpuQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=H9/+QaHBalo0IIMuteKrCG1rpDrvkRm/jT/uZ0H7JQWCx4dAr8+plvOlbBSNi48Ya 82nKaXtjUIK/PtcMB4cNkHfBSi4civ5N2Pw6WkWZuLWZFPxKc2bJBODbBqcdfg57Rv KY8pc9yfbSY7L3uz+5tdqk2G7g4MqeYVZiRGgnNjQcCiuC2dv4l8pvLSgvF5+mOrrf 99hpYMo2XG0whPe2gB47Px1gycuscjxiHUXQEnVbqPGnwPEQxcbUTk/ftMpqmKtU4n XStjJpo6CN+sGI+SLg+/k+0wU4C6mV3mDZ8rS7tcPusGxu3CMk5UeEpgoKJXzyfNob YkSgkYMfwtysg== To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Luca Muscariello , Rich Brown , ECN-Sane In-Reply-To: <201911131542.xADFgMiO044462@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <201911131542.xADFgMiO044462@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:52:28 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87r22bojsz.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] Meanwhile, over on NANOG... 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, 13 Nov 2019 15:52:30 -0000 "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes: >> "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes: >> >> >> -t is the TOS value; so those two happen to correspond to ECT(1) and >> >> ECT(0); and as you can see they go two different paths. Which would be >> >> consistent with the SYN going one way and the data packets going >> >> another. >> > >> > Perhaps Old enough that maybe they are treating that as TOS byte? >> > >> > Looks like you have nailed it though, someone has a broken hash. >> >> Yup, seems like it. Posted a writeup to the NANOG list in response to >> the guy asking; it hasn't showed up in the archive, though, so I guess >> it's still in the moderation queue. >> >> I think I'll write the whole thing up as a blog post as well, once it's >> resolved. I'll see if I can get them to tell me which router make and >> model is doing this. > > Yes, please do write it up some place. It would probably be sane to > also start a list of "Things that have been found, (and fixed if true) the following > brokeness regarding ECN/RFC3168 conformance of systems." > > Even without the make and model one can describe it as inproper hashing > in ECMP routing equipment at foo. Yup, that was exactly my thought (documenting brokenness) :) -Toke