From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 80B813B29E for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id q22so68528643iog.4 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT) 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=3u19WlKCQV9u7rRpE9bL3FYcXSDTgAJ4bwyAcnsE5CM=; b=J6/bWUvMnNlPVWojYvlsABO3sXbugiGVhUvzpZsLooJf32Qkm9weLbeGrGQimMuBRs TblgvodHvT7M+2O+qOZHz2doLPJUmRWItjFUBc32GIjajwuhtWToz3lWYVpaP+3hZ3qR tg8f+8FUGnP3Hcom1FqCBsTTE2g3dftRSJp6A01wiPQx+eKNZU3/CwoA0xhqAG7YDNOw nqyPd5fePIdpa1bpqiNirQu8lmpkpHp68Vc/zDy8fYHCYJyIwYOj3IM+C6MsmiMgatzn BGUM0wvIUaivIXlZHMlabCV+g8bq4Pebw2jXcNeJ3jjuoEaq709StqtJ0ImUSiWZBvn3 ptdg== 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=3u19WlKCQV9u7rRpE9bL3FYcXSDTgAJ4bwyAcnsE5CM=; b=k4RCmTOuqayy7PLMPLxLgBdqtwHEu40ZnpyF3neA6Z1iEbLXpMihZILGdtDGvu8iFe jn/QFQzX0eEjfYhi69T9qbRuYEQaCX7IzX2y3bVddJm940FkNbhsNfQdJL97Yr5qdAkV KnNcGDJd9URidRvGTaaVviNAxmpuAVKXIgYpdpdQ8faMrHapRUicugeqC/yK82NlZFx8 dRE+04NtBZEUOSVkjyqO7TOFFKFOZQMzqZYAA14Y4BO6Ts/T7OLw+qs0KnUr+HwHIjSD B2ymSqtAkZvPbhPDQIwEjA7q/TUwBsh+ia/QD8DLpA1Ko2tBFxEi7GHYWKR9efTNCVr6 2IDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW4R3odKbKr9GlKtnOyqW5zc29L1J5ctfh44CasydPMDPSlQKLd wmkOlWFnV7pfyFT1ljO6ngLplc2VEf5ErixYIdY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzTpVmgQ1Q73Ob0b1/AUdv5moCcsBFijAb8x3EdKaBAobKJtZIPBWo1JOF9md5YaHbvOLsFvkDepnsfXYuLVik= X-Received: by 2002:a02:3093:: with SMTP id q141mr68123633jaq.128.1563723042828; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:30:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <1238A446-6E05-4A55-8B3B-878C8F39FC75@gmail.com> <17B33B39-D25A-432C-9037-3A4835CCC0E1@gmail.com> <52F85CFC-B7CF-4C7A-88B8-AE0879B3CCFE@gmail.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com> <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de> <22af0671-fdd0-0953-fc96-55b34beb0be9@bobbriscoe.net> In-Reply-To: <22af0671-fdd0-0953-fc96-55b34beb0be9@bobbriscoe.net> From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:30:31 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bob Briscoe Cc: Sebastian Moeller , Jonathan Morton , "Black, David" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" , Dave Taht , "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Ecn-sane] Hackathon 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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:30:43 -0000 Just changing the endless topic line On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:17 AM Bob Briscoe wrote: > > Sebastian, > > On 19/07/2019 23:03, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > > > > >> On Jul 19, 2019, at 22:44, Jonathan Morton wro= te: > >> So I'm pleased to hear that the L4S team will be at the hackathon with= a demo setup. Hopefully we will be able to obtain comparative test result= s, using the same test scripts as we use on SCE, and also insert an RFC-316= 8 single queue AQM into their network to demonstrate what actually happens = in that case. I think that the results will be illuminating for all concer= ned. > > What I really would like to see, how L4S endpoints will deal with= post-bottleneck ingress shaping by an RFC3168 -compliant FQ-AQM. I know th= e experts here deems this not even a theoretical concern, but I really real= ly want to see data, that L4S flows will not crowd out the more reactive RF= C3168 flows in that situation. This is the set-up quite a number of latency= sensitive end-users actually use to "debloat" the internet and it would be= nice to have real data showing that this is not a concern. > Both teams brought their testbeds, and as of yesterday evening, Koen and > Pete Heist had put the two together and started the tests Jonathan > proposed. Usual problems: latest Linux kernel being used has introduced > a bug, so need to wind back. But progressing. > > Nonetheless, altho it's included in the tests, I don't see the > particular concern with this 'Cake' scenario. How can "L4S flows crowd > out more reactive RFC3168 flows" in "an RFC3168-compliant FQ-AQM". > Whenever it would be happening, FQ would prevent it. > > To ensure we're not continually being blown into the weeds, I thought > the /only/ concern was about RFC3168-compliant /single-queue/ AQMs. > > > > Bob > > > > > Best Regards > > Sebastian > > > > > > > >> - Jonathan Morton > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ecn-sane mailing list > >> Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecn-sane mailing list > > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740