[aqm] ECN support and usage on the Internet

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Tue, 19 March 2013 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E28D21F86F7; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.357, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0plgJ38qzZnS; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD9321F8A7E; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA624600F5; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:04:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from vpn-2-cl195 (vpn-2-cl195 [10.41.21.195]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614AE600F4; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:04:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
To: iccrg@irtf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:04:32 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201303190904.32180.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Subject: [aqm] ECN support and usage on the Internet
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:04:36 -0000

Hi everybody,

we just published a paper on the state of ECN support and usage on the 
Internet. We performed a similar study than Bauer et al., probing webservers 
to get the current status. We found that about 30% of webservers (by Sep'12) 
support ECN. Unfortunately, still we saw a failure rate of 9% when checking
end-2-end path ECN usability (setting CE). Additionally, we analyzed NetFlow 
data to get a lower bound for the ECN usage which was below 1%. Then we also 
had a look at IPv6 (47,5% ECN support). At the same time we also monitored an 
increase in general IPv6 support on webserver over the IPv6 launch day last 
year (-> check the paper).

Kühlewind, M.; Neuner, S.; Trammell, B.: On the state of ECN and TCP Options 
on the Internet. Proceedings of the 14th Passive and Active Measurement 
conference (PAM 2013), Hong Kong, March 2013.

http://www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de/Content/Publications/Archive/Kue_PAM13_40160.pdf

Do we need to start a campaign to further encourage greater ECN support (also 
of network providers)? Asking the content providers on the list(s): What are 
the reasons to not enable ECN support?

Mirja