From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) (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 056A83CB35 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 13:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id d14-v6so3477266ybs.8 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=djg4sOuYk/bFRcNvKV0x1yWp/lMoaRCOt/beYFSASoc=; b=d463zqSoQv4mSGC0at3efkYPXCUqSzsZirXRP7ICO5E8wReuw958ZLSiz3HxRydWp/ ywJ2dFM/CGtT3+AuWD2eCbk077YmFJRVAngPhRuJZONpF6VC1KQrTKzRgGExlwbB9q4A Ux1inNlaci4CvxTNp1LytRwY6mb4hoS8ovCIR6qjk+bedImKFvGL3oY8jblE84jsJSrC Zf2qulpMYtmnamt+eTMjiP5RqqdRL4tl+JtECemJbswbeOzAQLu3dpE5/3LethCMrlIj Vs1ZFFIkg8OgkslVlNdvQ01ElCKK3XoSjhvBpk01b1PM9o2kq5zD+/tJni7AwZ0tgpje 0KWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=djg4sOuYk/bFRcNvKV0x1yWp/lMoaRCOt/beYFSASoc=; b=HX+mtGhIvMjlxrgMFu1uxoEJkb/HHuBMQSxAMC1GJ9Y+4ps2nb1Rr4rpaAAgtfnWPP 2G6MPxW9Pfeo1rx1NzHubXVflbmOGSiOlbszU8BiYXn+z3VEnpGKy6xdL8vhC6dAooCf 4B1lQhAhL44h7e/INy5XGzd+ITdvHQNiVKRkAu35l6FE5+s0qrlV7c0f9LkQLko132hb mNDWD6NFg3txTiHOTKNxMwvsQUoTKSYKt/yS4shqA/EjRFl3u6s+aJNRa81Z1GWFuprp 6/F5I+N9uJc2gbFLz6cCn8OgE2/IwYKc++EzOdOaSUCnAwJ/LqSEwh9PVSTI2H5BWC/Z uYVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojChXWs1NMJRLMtifjDI7jq3Hi7dIJufCvVpI6HLR+XNk8MVuEe HrA1rqe6oXCzSgyWpZptmB3N+zw8EZ7qOHSPLyjR2prl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61lbk+TGFbUuXoj5Ms2PYpmyLy2G+59ybtXVY9wiJjexG/EJT6DnY4+wKOGZs/1+rzoKuuZ9bbQ2iYtw/i/ORw= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b3c9:: with SMTP id x9-v6mr5167646ybf.508.1537810041217; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Bruno George Moraes Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:27:09 -0300 Message-ID: To: ECN-Sane Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d283b0576a14d04" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Ecn-sane] ECN usable with UDP paper 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, 24 Sep 2018 17:27:22 -0000 --0000000000003d283b0576a14d04 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable https://csperkins.org/publications/2015/10/mcquistin2015ecn-udp.html Using measurements from the author=E2=80=99s homes, their workplace, and cl= oud servers in each of the nine EC2 regions worldwide, we test reachability of 2500 servers from the public NTP server pool, using ECT(0) and not-ECT marked UDP packets. We show that an average of 98.97% of the NTP servers that are reachable using not-ECT marked packets are also reachable using ECT(0) marked UDP packets, and that 98% of network hops pass ECT(0) marked packets without clearing the ECT bits. We compare reachability of the same hosts using ECN with TCP, finding that 82.0% of those reachable with TCP can successfully negotiate and use ECN. Our findings suggest that ECN is broadly usable with UDP traffic, and that support for use of ECN with TCP has increased. --0000000000003d283b0576a14d04 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<= div dir=3D"ltr">Using measurements from the author=E2= =80=99s homes, their workplace, and cloud servers in each of the nine EC2 r= egions worldwide, we test reachability of 2500 servers from the public NTP = server pool, using ECT(0) and not-ECT marked UDP packets. We show that an a= verage of 98.97% of the NTP servers that are reachable using not-ECT marked= packets are also reachable using ECT(0) marked UDP packets, and that 98% o= f network hops pass ECT(0) marked packets without clearing the ECT bits. We= compare reachability of the same hosts using ECN with TCP, finding that 82= .0% of those reachable with TCP can successfully negotiate and use ECN. Our= findings suggest that ECN is broadly usable with UDP traffic, and that sup= port for use of ECN with TCP has increased.=C2=A0=C2=A0
--0000000000003d283b0576a14d04--