From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (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 CCC913B29D for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:26:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id k2so1152066ili.4 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:26:46 -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=vuzK1Sf9RQgX8Zc9eYE5aU0vSXRF1zkAGdCPqdUq2MU=; b=Yo70GE2gXmqzcDDJh3LrSJcBCRevU0vPe+vI3bSlOpDTdoBVHWSzu32QQ9Pu6STjPp 3mJcQIvC0If+0dYuICufSdPMukiwKbIOfJhqBKsg+t10/R1zPWKQUpiS2dXjSOt1EfcS jJSpMhaqyrkgwDG/mk927/wN7wlfprUmRXXIQa5ubWR+EzTCwV0GOPGyt7BmJvTCeReY QWW8Y3/41BE/aNN3hJ2LvWxXRcOSp7aO5HEz8nHzSUXmL6ta1ss05HIVnM4SQra/OO8w RJHxV21By9R9S7xDkBqxOKIQDopDuczEMpi4Jl4ZoJOfIHI7ax04Rc4scmh8p9dcO+Ey c4wQ== 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=vuzK1Sf9RQgX8Zc9eYE5aU0vSXRF1zkAGdCPqdUq2MU=; b=QlQil+PUrfk1a7iYw6qD7L7+lBS2UkWKu5nauZBQ4ofmX36gsLwQSdq24cFX9nzarL 5i0WIG2KB+vTenu9TQu9jOCSlH40i01QoGAwKqN7GHG/W5FwiaAS5z+k3IlQDtJTeUfx n6x40qKNlfrE6+ZxbN2XzVCmOrnT3MuPXm9eW9b7EMQ/wQZa9yc95kvppe6t4nnrn1U2 0alBwE2iNgI8i3JwY14nH4JCgL+tJwclbGZuOvgSnVfiGa53rYxNaohhRDx54xnJ5Of6 ObNQv8cBVLoXrSD4i035cRry9HJmzTezYYVMSot9xAT89/MpgwiMDBSU8Dk6TX6Z+U+I Beuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/r8YgnC/+nFj/dVqwX9qRjxJsERHEKOTUMMJ+n0r5rEbRvnnk qH0nbDrFO3Hb3z2vlSUhdmLnL4JaGNb7kSeI0yI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdMVuwg8E7kJnF2r3k1szfhYy7qXOHPJg7vv7OpE5tyLMULebRWNx+FEyVtrmtaFrYWai5lKbCWBMuVYCIFgE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f06:: with SMTP id x6mr4523908ilj.287.1613939206098; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:26:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202102211714.11LHElPj006827@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <202102211714.11LHElPj006827@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Sebastian Moeller , ECN-Sane Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] ect(1) queue selector 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: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:26:46 -0000 Thx for the clarifications. What I meant by X-G was 3G, 4G, 5G. On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 9:14 AM Rodney W. Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > Hello Dave, and Sebastian, > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2021, at 20:27, Dave Taht wrote: > > > > > > I note that I have done my best to stay out of this for a while, so > > > long that I (thankfully) mis-remember various aspects of the debate. > > > Today I have a question about l4s vs SCE as it's come up again. > > > > > > l4s uses both a dscp codepoint AND ect(1) to indicate dctcp style > > > congestion control > > > is in use, and also can dump other protocols into that queue lacking > > > any ecn markings. > > > > Mmmh, according to the L4S internet drafts, L4S does not want to = use a DSCP at all. Interestingly enough, Greg White is proposing a related = internet draft about the NQB PHB and DSCP that sounds awfully like the miss= ing DSCP in the L4S drafts. IMHO if the whole thing would be guarded behind= a DSCP I would be less annoyed by the design and process of L4S.... > > That is correct, the L4S proponents absolutely do not want anything to do= with a DSCP and L4S. > If they would of simply agreed that this was actually a good idea they co= uld propbably be at deployment state now.... but they insist it is pointles= s to take this route due to the traveral problem. > > > > > > > > > SCE proposes to use ect(1) as an indicator of some congestion and doe= s > > > not explictly > > > require a dscp codepoint in a FQ'd implementation. > > > > Pretty much. I do think that a demonstration using an additional = DSCP to create a similar HOV lane for SCE would have gone miles in convinci= ng people in the WG that L4S might really not be as swell as its proponents= argue, IMHO it won the day more with its attractive promise of low latency= for all instead of what it delivers. > > The original SCE design was without any mention of DSCP. Since that pret= ty much stahled us in the battle with L4S there actually *IS* an SCE design= that uses one or more DSCP. This technically allows SCE to proceed forwar= d on its own without any blessing from IETF so that we may gain some additi= onal experience and data. This *IS NOT* the ideal design, but I feel by ta= king this road we might gain ground. > > > > Do I have that right? Now, my question was, simply, in MPLS or X-G ar= e > > > they out of bits, and > > > that's why they want to use up this one in L4S? > > > > I do not think that MPLS folks are a driver in all of this, no? N= o idea what X-G is. > > We do not know fully all of there motivations for being so very insistant= on doing it this way, only this way, and with no changes of any kind. But= they do seem very stuck on there design and unflexiable in any and all sug= gestions of change. > > > > -- > > > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over publi= c > > > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > > > > > dave@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > > Regards, > -- > Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebs= d.org --=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