From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9A2B3B29E for ; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:51:05 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1613872264; bh=Z7FKcY0cXfnp8RICsjJCvAulwmOgA98Pvlv+ghYCeG0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=E+FnZ5m8W3CYcbSmfu9ToO15ToIP6sW+KMLO9KzLbWbj+yaAyIITGLfw3wWiRIXxl UMuLyp8akpazd8KNRUr1EtfApUI/km8xzJkAhKToa6wD5hmhGpTQPZI5jEai5ZEGFq 3ev3EbpJzJ5RPd3ghut00DI4uYM44xjztVu27uPU= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.0.174.91]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MeCpR-1lo4mV0iv9-00bKwC; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 02:51:04 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 02:51:03 +0100 Cc: ECN-Sane Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:CAA7GVk/RMm0DrzfpXEW/U6WpihpqN2PrAdqRQBNFiyVPravHE1 gHapuTO6OzjQqQUVB/GMAHvdhVZez9pr63UkyqdVQSxCBC1sqrng1J7firlyqOvgV2Fq+xz xe83ITb/5oDdoNGcH659tA9HDrtmqMW6OHXoIp90+T8LkbJNfaVwuuqQ6rHX9XZv5PsHmZL yUlIEhQ39RvAOBtehTpIA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:1CZAfUL5RiU=:oxdzO06MtbTfbmTOMF0oVe V+ac8VVLW4frm0Gpl0CTTfJRJYj4/lYn6bcFcdJ8jr3TTxG4oQ0JdSZx8lnHz8rWU7cIr0ZD/ 0VjtNZhhGU4gjOfoYbD1kb6d7b750rewwD+KmtSA/X+U7RrMVzIxArpVtR9f5T3fHlzXw4GlB pg3oPRf4elR5K0awhXYUqEC+dokaJDM2JXEZQXAksfTdX3jguXgsLWbX0DmGZBLhqSqNuPCdc gy22YtMRt/ly6zVaHT5gMvP1NfK+ff2DRApB+djpoiusroyN3fW6GCaCjIKong9wd62Z/y+hM iP7sSmL03zYCPubyISy69aypfCXozDQIutzzJXLPwMAGunWdM+7u3Pa63kChMBLeP2h+qbTK0 6iR6i/L+27As5bqmmv0RT3BjAgqQc3f8JKzv7P+9XjnW2Lj8dCGtcovmGW5e4Mg/TNMG9JmZr /6CNj/rZ8LTRBUexY9UhCdXU6dcVbC/vvEQNWwNl9oGEfctUNfhx+QOrNc+uSIVWMOXu9vcX6 W4d2QsNaxRprBIf8FhUZIcQ5e8N99yZRsdKqfkNJm/GqCgPRysPLgxvQPHNjZITjIYvLto21K criTSIAci96cYvxxgSBY6nNBC6PaD8vY9wSCOUA7RJ4LWLm1seuaK+ZopFOy60q4GsptBENjm nbvkg1AghDd4oI+8dpdc8pWt/b5Em5gmtIOrw44yQN6L5Eohwxwyr5SWVLmP+/tJGhL6zssXL LS8LkDsuwEtXDayGCSaQ+g71QAO9hhNA0l2gNmmeKW49a2mueadpoEWLD+cOfzx4Qmy0kBdws XMchf26rtRCcTXrbFoUH9rja8ASCpIzDE3bW6BPxLFUbj3pE9kUnakRTd8FC3QBfnwLlQJxw8 8DzzsZVBIDvzVTdfsMQg== 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 01:51:06 -0000 Hi Dave, > On Feb 20, 2021, at 20:27, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 missing 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.... >=20 > SCE proposes to use ect(1) as an indicator of some congestion and does > 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 = convincing 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. >=20 > Do I have that right? Now, my question was, simply, in MPLS or X-G are > 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? = No idea what X-G is.=20 >=20 > --=20 > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman >=20 > dave@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane