Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] ECN CE that was ECT(0) incorrectly classified as L4S

[<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>]

I'd like to sort Mikael's list a little....

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> 

Of course congestion occurs. But the probability of it matters (the less likely it is, the less likely are efforts to work around it) 

Congestion is not probable in a well dimensioned backbone and at paid peerings. I think the effort put into congestion avoidance by engineering is high at these locations and whether protocol design to deal with congestion there (and make a gain as compared to todays transport performance under congestion there) is worth a larger effort. Bulk transport optimisation makes sense there, that includes suitable AQM.

Public peerings and not well dimensioned networks may suffer from regular congestion. I'm not sure to which extent technical standards can significantly improve service quality in that situation. IP transport must work as good as possible also in such a situation, of course. 

The following are access issues:

   There is the uplink to the BNG or whatever.
   There is the user-unique shaper
   There is the L2 aggregation network (DOCSIS/*PON/ETTH) There is the in-house wifi network.

Maybe one can add LTE and 5G, these are layer 2 standards missing above. Shared L2 may result in annoying performance. To me, L3 protocol design improving IP performance over one or more L2 protocols standardised by other SDOs sounds good. I wonder to which extent that's feasible.   

As you know, the user-unique (BNG or the like) shaper is my favourite site where I'd appreciate improvements. 

Home Gateways are a mass market product. I'm not familiar with ways to impact the vendors of that segment (but agree that it's worth trying). Also wireless scheduling of IP traffic certainly is an interesting topic. I'm not sure whether IETF has sufficient impact to push for improved packet transport performance there (again, it's worth trying).