From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 38A143B29D for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id e7so10522586ile.7 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:57:37 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8D9pB/ShQ4RqQbFE6UowhuOTaE6X25+jRg1Sc/Jfsqk=; b=tG05+1SPbnbxnFjtMieHjLKt1wwFE1MxpFFEJny3/rvkG+BOuOWDsv8aJKZGXpXBE1 we5NAaQmowYBXB70CpFIDL93JmLSnoz4sX5rGcU+cDGkArWTbZCTGTEWWu/C0SYut2JP Os6gEfpyxMn8Wu326Tgh9LILUexX6C77RtjIx/7zcAlNMW2S7zX8D9SFOkbZ0g/CgYKl kDskTPeDfmOqU0iQ08j03WMa6PBV+Pha8p0WneK/oKAudj/oeEs9vqb8/vRH6+0ryQXU K13CF2aPWPOTMZkUTg5w22j7sERvsO2C5UwFQAr3MqjBXnGkcaYZFzebQha4ijyDx+7Y PrUg== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8D9pB/ShQ4RqQbFE6UowhuOTaE6X25+jRg1Sc/Jfsqk=; b=SxZDBjSoYuAOLCIyan2OG33oSIlFDZ2xffWZxzevCSAOs0EkMeVAn8cTE/jG1wLjuY neyd5Xncy7luiiMtdpBp0sJ6FtXAeId2fabLHSytQZml1Aj/QLwTh3MdsNoKtIj+th42 shK6izVv0lDCE+c8JWTcd84WPUIgQhoYBf7ODR8hmTWdfshpxWWhV7pzsNbrAPE2TpHL TH6fDmYNnXwBF0EJ9T9mLnYpX9aceiWw0H9OWLPK/qeAecF+Ga/jWz6qOzb7e/8mSMuH qr+WmBnZANUgLhdvuTsohCThtVSBeK8wvBDaDL7u42IiRNR3lecxpQNAINjXfDCCizmz L3Rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532abCPJcadlAnr1sPy+9SAhamFgoX6ViuR2ntl23T0IyFgZgE45 vdyCKMEueX2qIVmwbIx12jR01N0OCW1j4xAM53A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkhraYJ88I50hECEi+17jW2KzFTn7FTnjvU/zb0+wSBUoh8ltAcMqtAQ4ulNBK+mEOCsIgduQkapYbRvvAThY= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cb49:: with SMTP id f9mr21228399ilq.0.1615247856637; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:57:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:57:25 -0800 Message-ID: To: Pete Heist Cc: ECN-Sane Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 23:57:37 -0000 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. 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. 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-observ= ations/ > ). 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 --=20 "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman dave@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729