From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 A7F533B29D for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id c64so7184424edf.11 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:17:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3dtEANiC7kx+3DaKPMRZ3gAc1MOq2jE2BTCxWZ0UYys=; b=I5qnSPqKYcO1OETHsqbTUFNC+3cMmnGZUxPzg7mbQYIAx/DLr+iEtc+x7D0/zZC2If RgRXgT4pmseNjmP/4LhWqHJWiAda+I9uQre731f75wVjkmngD8FOEJ+MzZhUe8WK/fWP kg+Hg690Bbs2Lkq9vhSzMavzf8q9WpVYODFdsECap2xwwZICtmlHjTnkuqqs0F1aQdJc CsIyzciYa79JhgXAknI4XrS+gm4YyoicSG3FSTHUi8AvYEx28MCv6owjB+fYFxavYfzX gLcbb8L1ma2o1UvBjOBkrS8YJ8EwJUktSqRGRUHVs1tmEhlCbFqpNYxQDMU/MPdkZedQ ZSDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3dtEANiC7kx+3DaKPMRZ3gAc1MOq2jE2BTCxWZ0UYys=; b=wCj7QlWtuUUwWj3Xt9oGlwSPuK7gQZHkd6oYW1oQwWgCtxIEBGLWBh0ohPP0js1r5v BYvfiMvrQfxl9iyZJ3IOai2gbgnvQh9iQhD+YbkzYRb77oqSYMOJbYrhaPVfKy99QNeK cQnmagHaV+iSIjVmxy0f2vT3rJSeYq+fGArrcjvRowNUgdHJHypT0GiRNoRf6lY5VFmF CRVSUKiDWABL7GI5Qg1+aWX0zoD5zctF1NCYKl+A8hAPnFsN1FEPM11RF8zAth79n0iF DCi91xDqdAZfdngi75DyUig1nHyABxlfWc3olpLcYgF7nxbzOW2ETJe3J9OTCKvoRR2w udRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PpRkh6hS4/nlUYlzccZ6vGtopxteDtoAXrLyqwV9YjNHwDX3b /wdF8r26ah9GwB3+eipkm4hZ97Vg28SwHbFPLyk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIXBqj7CNRuVbLYl1kRk/TGH75I2P+6m64MawkwYU5KzNR1jH8NrhxRCn4PcVXKm06DjH2Ttm3rAY/Cpc85mw= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cac5:0:b0:41c:c1fb:f5cc with SMTP id l5-20020aa7cac5000000b0041cc1fbf5ccmr4040457edt.219.1649956630466; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4430DD9F-2556-4D38-8BE2-6609265319AF@ifi.uio.no> <1649778681.721621839@apps.rackspace.com> <0026CF35-46DF-4C0C-8FEE-B5309246C1B7@ifi.uio.no> <08F92DA0-1D59-4E58-A289-3D35103CF78B@gmx.de> <1649955272.49298319@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:16:59 -0700 Message-ID: To: "David P. Reed" Cc: Michael Welzl , ECN-Sane Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] rtt-fairness question 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:17:11 -0000 Actually, in looking back at what I wrote, I was A) comparing a recent rtt-fairness result I'd got without ECN with multiple flows at 20ms to 260ms RTT that I was insanely pleased with. B) while trying to understand and asking about what sort of RTT-fairness results were being achieved with early ECN marking in the dctcp world. which until recently was mostly shooting for fairness in the sub-us to 2ms range. I was laboriously starting over from scratch, reading the original papers, tracking the breadcrumbs from 2009 until today, so I'd stumbled on some thoughts in the next paper after the dctcp paper that I was too lazy to try and correlate to present day "prague" and BBRv2 thinking.