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 594173B29E for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 05:40:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1553506845; bh=mFoUcNXdT7pnEXxtzZsmJVUFQkugkYa0Otmuin0mWts=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=C1X4mIR+q5Uj192E8R+A9zY/vpwDSzGjTIFCjHWMHFM4T+J1OwWNae/pUmRjqG9x2 FvXGznBZgatXeuMYOPzK99+Vtjip6zKyS/sey2CuxTRv6dQzpoyYWZT271BmKYTIr4 rA5ccEOOFNc/pSihXFGwgNpUMf+avTSoTH/F/jhA= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLfLH-1h9BB02RyV-000qQg; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:40:45 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <43D640E1-DF36-401A-A638-44D1AF6E1F47@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:40:42 +0100 Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9600DC6D-D545-404A-A7F7-63D345ECDACB@gmx.de> References: <3E9C6E74-E335-472B-8745-6020F7CDBA01@gmx.de> <907D3152-4AD5-4551-AA6A-46FF9CA567DE@gmail.com> <43D640E1-DF36-401A-A638-44D1AF6E1F47@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:xjFKlT4RUw8FBQ5k8gzbAUICmP9EDiMXZo4rInuenxrqKBcDIBv geTn0gpUxtQet03bEI7SFTYltYY+tBnWjpKis5o0dkx18xnT5kKkRVYd318r7tD9qUt+TXb i6tqII94p19xOYE3KgA2nFaOs6FnF9gSthCSvy15nG3RCs19hOiVZgDkWA4VLL7xlxA3haq 03IEeOyLgclLKZc3hoXhQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:kzPfVAF+AgA=:+XmLrmOOrzwdCM0dj9PdB6 hmKLwBlyR4SF/vg5Y/UAYIWf4gevNMWCguAXchx8w2f7yi3IMKbAptwN599YRU6pR9J/UBDsA C+47C9YPXRcvWMslM9D8mhaJw+Seb9HJ65F3qYP9HQW9Qgdu0iIFzSVqfOiFXqMP2OmmkQDjc 1MmMrGevgTXcN8nW1TlLMueo5JXbHEBuwNmtIiiOoKtfSnqPR+ylymIc+jMQ6t96//Xy1NtJS SruLF1sekB1mSyTXiSVv3GVPlxUh8CPyEa8ig6/XTdePt+AfeP6pX8+XjPMh8jDsKO41rHYH+ DDjfvoFxAc2FpZZZwJ8PxnXGQg/pUKB7K/SDl4XLHJcihz7eShSl6JuOe1iLdF7JZHD/YwCKl deDSkTRKbwyv4Yc6eeqKkrTcFEF8QlAq+4G8+0SNVcprKqR3Ylyf+oxyHGEEDfKychdXa6Ipy wDDKblP4itT7yEGsJlmmaJsgIpq2ZHExdOD7mc8LoOi71NkQryjPguLoqlfUN1ZrUeNPohlfo bl++hlmuK4VBGqk9/LzdlZS5OugvyhFxICYB2QJeLncXket2zzAjCT2WskS/txfqebn21O6nN BEKKXg7SFFZgSSTLP3poihUjdb/6+Z+7+lQLBpvW4GUh8t9ckYz47I4jD/SVvqj2lJZ3HH89L Uu3Ub4e97IuEEmQXro8Z3X7HoMBwX5hXAxGZI3cCt+6CKDPZiM1sQUqQN15OX++fwPPsCHy9I 4M8yJUSS5m0WKNk8p1Jr+kXTQyHcmqRKaArrBtWlCo8ql2lY4D4iK5L3Ztg1K1JOVrbC325L2 zd6yZkc5+usni/PuL0Rk7+lQrQ1hJ4eD0OVVidQJAFwdWVzHwlj14gVC8ckmtUpn3rv5i5nZP BreeP7Nxp99QDHE/4fIbagD68Ki0G48ayBPlcHzslmuJ9Z9rSYS+vWerS2zzDJAegAsrmJ3Iq qHVxU3Brojg== Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] robustness against attack? 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:40:47 -0000 Hi Jonathan, > On Mar 25, 2019, at 09:53, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 25 Mar, 2019, at 9:34 am, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >>=20 >> If you'll recall, my initial workaround was simply to=20 >=20 > =E2=80=A6not implement SCE on single-queue middleboxes, and rely on = the known-good CE response in that case. =20 Which reduces the problem to get middle-boxes to use ECN at all = ;) > But if we can show that putting SCE there too is safe, that's even = better. Given that the above might be harder than desired, it might be a = good idea to immediately aim a bit higher than pure-CE ECN. Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > - Jonathan Morton >=20