From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC163B2A4 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 04:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5A4BFB4; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:41:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1565167293; bh=OqY5aYFf4zsOg59/B4RkHPN3IzoB+y9Dxgirf+yuaYQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=3h1KLpxRyqA18M/BRYccu36gm8rgKHJJzkoIeORwhSoHOSYoM4b8xUP1Ij2owhEZq xsWvcNZiqPG6xMyzsFrsetiU5/d1G4pWlk4NHHPiezVSPWENfyaWWZF5K9/59mYUbF DrMizvxQJoHtQVt3iISVojGvzI5IeEnaPtxuBsts= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58375B1; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:41:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:41:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: "Black, David" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" , Bob Briscoe , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Dave Taht , "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" In-Reply-To: <9C42D7E8-734A-4620-B95B-5FFDDF1D3D95@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <4B02593C-E67F-4587-8B7E-9127D029AED9@gmx.de> <34e3b1b0-3c4c-bb6a-82c1-89ac14d5fd2c@bobbriscoe.net> <77522c07-6f2e-2491-ba0e-cbef62aad194@bobbriscoe.net> <619092c0-640f-56c2-19c9-1cc486180c8b@bobbriscoe.net> <3A454B00-AEBC-48B6-9A8A-922C66E884A7@gmx.de> <21E40F44-2151-4565-970E-E1CEBE975036@gmx.de> <58F8052E-A56B-4E1F-8E1D-CBE75A0F7332@akamai.com> <9C42D7E8-734A-4620-B95B-5FFDDF1D3D95@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Compatibility with singlw queue RFC3168 AQMs 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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:41:35 -0000 On Fri, 26 Jul 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote: > Based on our post-session discussions, I feel that it may not actually > be entirely clear to the L4S people just how serious the situation with > L4S and Codel is. My take on all of this is that whatever we come up with needs to be incrementally deployable on an Internet that has everything from stupid huge FIFOs to FQ_CODEL to whatever else might be out there, and there should be no huge pathological downsides of deployment that causes widespread degradation/collapse of anything currently being in wider use on the Internet. In 5-10 years we're still going to have all kinds of AQMs and stupid huge FIFOs still in wide use. So I'd like to see robust testing done for all proposals to see that they work properly on everything from GSM EDGE to ADSL to FQ_CODEL and dual-queue whatever we come up with together with commonly used traffic types on the Internet today, elastic and non-elastic. I realise this is problematic and gets in the way of progress but the Internet is a messy place and we need to do mitigation of pathological cases where new and old don't always play nice together. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se