[Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> Btw, in 
> http://1ukcym66nom10cmylunctf84-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TR-156_Issue-2-1.pdf 
> 5.2.x you can see how scheduling is done. If you'd like something like 
> that changed then anything new needs to go into documents like these in 
> order to get further deplyment.

Btw, I reached out to some people here at the BBF about doing 
anti-bufferbloat in this context and getting this into the documents, and 
there is no reason why this can't be introduced.

Now, the proposal needs to be "reasonable" and implementable, so if 
someone would be interested in work like that I'd like to hear from you. I 
have taken initiative in trying to come up with configuration guidance for 
operators for their existing equipment, and that could be a way forward.

So this won't be "put CAKE or FQ_CODEL everywhere", but instead introduce 
configuration guidance regarding bufferbloat, best common practice for 
different deployment scenarios etc. Let's not try to boil the ocean right 
away, but let's try to point industry in the right direction. BBF creates 
documents that architects networks that connects ~1B households, so 
whatever we come up with could benefit lots of people.

I understand that for some people here this will seem like stone age 
primive mechanisms, but it's still better than doing nothing at all (which 
is often the case). It would especially be beneficial to get similar 
guidance from several organisations (CableLabs and BBF would be two that 
immediately comes to mind).

I'll be at the IETF meeting monday-friday coming week, can we set up a 
meeting with some interested parties and actually have a "how do we get 
this into networks" kind of meeting. It would not be "my mechanism is 
better than yours" meeting, I'm not interested in that in this context.

I'm interested in "what can we do to improve the situation in the next 1-2 
years including installed base".

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Holland, Jake]

On 2019-03-21, 11:32, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
    I'll be at the IETF meeting monday-friday coming week, can we set up a 
    meeting with some interested parties and actually have a "how do we get 
    this into networks" kind of meeting. It would not be "my mechanism is 
    better than yours" meeting, I'm not interested in that in this context.
    
    I'm interested in "what can we do to improve the situation in the next 1-2 
    years including installed base".

This seems like a useful idea to me.

I guess based on Apple's observations[1], we know there's at least
one network in France and at least one in the Argentina that has
rolled this out at some scale.

Does anyone know which networks these are and maybe have contacts
there?  Maybe someone could find out what they did and write up a
case study?

I agree even getting some regular basic CE-marking stuff deployed
would probably be really cool if it can be done sanely.

-Jake

[1] page 12:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-maprg-tcp-ecn-experience-with-enabling-ecn-on-the-internet-padma-bhooma-00.pdf

Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 23 Mar, 2019, at 7:00 am, Holland, Jake <jholland@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree even getting some regular basic CE-marking stuff deployed
> would probably be really cool if it can be done sanely.

Heated agreement from over here, despite my preference for flow isolation.  Plain old AQM can be orders of magnitude better than a dumb FIFO.

 - Jonathan Morton

Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> Heated agreement from over here, despite my preference for flow 
> isolation.  Plain old AQM can be orders of magnitude better than a dumb 
> FIFO.

In my testing, FIFO with RED was already huge improvement over just plain 
FIFO.

Configuring 1GE shaping with FIFO yielded 100ms buffering just by naive 
configuration, adding one line of random-detect config brought this down 
to 10-15ms without any loss of actual throughput.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Holland, Jake]

Hi Mikael,

Any operator nibbles on making this meeting happen?

I'm not sure how useful I can be, but if there's any network
operators reading, I would love to hear the questions and
concerns from your side, and I'm happy to explain anything
I can help explain.

(Of course if it's just going to be vendors and/or implementors
getting together to agree ECN is a good idea, we might as well
bring plenty of beer...)

-Jake

On 2019-03-23, 20:12, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

    On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:
    
    > Heated agreement from over here, despite my preference for flow 
    > isolation.  Plain old AQM can be orders of magnitude better than a dumb 
    > FIFO.
    
    In my testing, FIFO with RED was already huge improvement over just plain 
    FIFO.
    
    Configuring 1GE shaping with FIFO yielded 100ms buffering just by naive 
    configuration, adding one line of random-detect config brought this down 
    to 10-15ms without any loss of actual throughput.
    

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

Btw, I reached out to some people here at the BBF about doing
anti-bufferbloat in this context and getting this into the documents, and
there is no reason why this can't be introduced.

Now, the proposal needs to be "reasonable" and implementable, so if
someone would be interested in work like that I'd like to hear from you. I
have taken initiative in trying to come up with configuration guidance for
operators for their existing equipment, and that could be a way forward.

...

I'll be at the IETF meeting monday-friday coming week, can we set up a
meeting with some interested parties and actually have a "how do we get
this into networks" kind of meeting. It would not be "my mechanism is
better than yours" meeting, I'm not interested in that in this context.

 

Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote:

> Hi Mikael,
>
> Any operator nibbles on making this meeting happen?

Nobody else expressed any interest in this, so I kind of dropped the idea.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se