From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (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 3E82C3B29E for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id p15so10631974qkl.5 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:24:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MaYuLjFssCnAIrUk8sg+nNG+na+HLHT8jLnAI3VUsZ0=; b=rRHRvp+tqirUqS5SIajuQMsSYGJ72YWSwf7KdDG53QQyKMfPfjPD1lyZ4UBla2JMMA dj/C0WB9euSum7LMMslBMemY1zzQNxnS4wuIKkSvvYuOMaQQ4SncsPUG+L6zKRh9Du8A Jp75oTv/mUwNWM4qTDWSIdj+XwG3KTVLPsoZlYoR0ymzaFC29DcHPVIeYVEvMc0LgHlo gpsAX4xxZVagToB1nqdYJ2W3a8z3NRwUoyle9+vFvWAM54fGcKAr85fb67DT7BDer2mP MQGQEvnxC2pBp8IHoUKzUblUF8aShiZAAD/X72TdKQm3PmXJL+rauVaJ0KDPbMiHIGij otrw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MaYuLjFssCnAIrUk8sg+nNG+na+HLHT8jLnAI3VUsZ0=; b=CVUeNr5G3Poa/Wb/6Ao6kjcS1xHEhMMy/332FiV3pKSS0SWSJrIoLRM4joYrF5W9QM cNSyG/0qYQKYA/huVrL6FEhjTE00ovZFhEhagKp90h2IVugCOcoC1rfxUfM0qbhkuZ6S BYhYlQYHHsUVAOKl2xN3gG0mbFVXIjt1odzKL3DX3WNn0VLaU1ssW8bCaMWgulPNT3kU yYehWyD+JveS34exiOf4omoJ/OBiUdmEdzWbEBMRsqCDto0Dlq7CQNjgq2UzNTA+L+hD 6X11JNY9rlcsgCqnAAda5cqKWzMnaTdHsqHIyDLLys8kJhhq9keRrQLaPqUxLklhEwZR /zqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubemE9YceLR68bJUjkOZBxJnL8Qus7bC8M7qkIiV2nPQdGhQ8av OXukmApuxhlrv+MYJqwy4dtpSrL7EJWj8TmT860= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ian25k0RvgS7de2cjpNq0P/kdZlipmXHj+YQxNuWZvaP5p2KuE5hHxGbOgfiSsWS5PVIRpz8yESepNG5+DYYVA= X-Received: by 2002:a37:3515:: with SMTP id c21mr17618288qka.17.1550517871796; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:24:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9FCA2304-8511-4AF6-B860-D42F124A5A32@gmx.de> <09043521-6078-42D3-A32E-CCAC94011F2C@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:24:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: Pete Heist Cc: Sebastian Moeller , ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] results of two simple ECN tests 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, 18 Feb 2019 19:24:32 -0000 I appreciate the shot at going back to basics and the packet capture driven tests. ECN does help keep latency down at longer RTTs. But the bandwidth improvements are rather minimal in this test case, and basically a function of what would have been the drop rate. The pathological cases I was discussing at one point (100 flows through a short low bandwidth link) dramatically increase delay, cause starvation for other flows (including new flows trying to start).