Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"

Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2B21A897D for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:33:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9iTGSZmsLjx4 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0441A8920 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::68ac:f071:19ff:3455]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:33:57 -0500
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: Wes Felter <wmf@felter.org>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
Thread-Index: AQHQVJ0J+9InyssQxUGw8Kj3YWubiJ0J81mA//+uoXA=
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:33:56 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830B5923E@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
References: <CAA93jw7KW=9PH002d3Via5ks6+mHScz5VDhpPVqLUGK2K=Mhew@mail.gmail.com> <md2fsa$o1s$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <md2fsa$o1s$1@ger.gmane.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ZFGU6wQz9MbcIJUoAK_aTTsIyyU>
Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:33:59 -0000

Would you do that to TCP or UDP traffic?

At IETF I often hear laments about middle-boxes breaking the internet by being "clever" with certain types of traffic.
It seems that policing ICMP falls into that category.

There may have been bugs in the past, but I'm not aware that ICMP packets are any more dangerous than UDP or TCP. And if the RFCs can be believed, ICMPv6 is critical to determining Path-MTU. Don't drop those.

One may wish to rate-limit ICMP (or DNS or TCP) flows as a matter of network policy, but in my opinion this should be kept orthogonal to solving buffer bloat.

Taken to the extreme, a network should support full utilization of a link doing only ping. If I wish to use my connection to the internet to ping hosts at full line rate, why not?


David Dolson
Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wes Felter
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:07 PM
To: aqm@ietf.org
Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net; bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"

What about a token bucket policer, so more than N ICMP/second gets 
penalized but a normal ping won't be.

-- 
Wes Felter


_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm