[Bloat] mosh, ecn, and diffserv marking

[Michael Welzl]

On 6/14/12 10:54 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 09:22 +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
>
>> One ECN-specific concern that was addressed is that it's often in the
>> interest of the receiver, but not the sender, to lie about ECN and
>> simply cheat (reflect "nonono, no congestion at all" back to the
>> sender). This is addressed by RFC3540, which is experimental and not
>> really used.
> Yes, apparently :(
>
I tried to restrain myself from self-promoting, but you asked for it   :-)
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~michawe/research/projects/spurious/index.html

There is code!  - and there are possible additional benefits from the nonce.

I didn't push for that in the IETF because there is a conflict with 
conex (I think? I lost track of all their plans for bits)  for using the 
bit-combination required by the nonce. And conex is a bigger, better 
plan than my "Nonce++" suggestion.

Cheers,
Michael