Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Wed, 17 June 2015 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.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 498F81A1A19 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 MXdh70N1kW-u for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A3961A19E3 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiax193 with SMTP id x193so40792773oia.2 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eWaw2etnYo29U4JplL+brb43BhQtSTCEzmnXxJxU/OA=; b=ilHrScospdAdcvBsQLPXuh4N3eNwunbZuIF6YC4FbKES5bj9TktStwOvfq3aC09t1G HLZWA9U8w655b28+asv3b2dWeZRVHp+xTHRMUgkUdNjZpA/I0az7s/fX5RoQn3F2J9mn nVSADvwrv93KTnGyojFU5W7HPozZyg1oKyCe2fT61Eg8J8NK+7lRbeTY/xaiOi5xkRuh CK4C6vj9m3t9NQ2H4ej0+/or56vkBEDLhNGr2DwlRTk29MTGVzrGmqBIVMQgN8MlRi/s kZrJAUUqzo7xiEoL40Ae81XQHkJshHNNjcIBoD+2j1Muf19ANEtnZ3ubLfS1bZiZ9Sba mUPA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.60.70 with SMTP id f6mr5716283oer.8.1434566019105; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <557AFABE.9030105@mti-systems.com>
References: <20150505184955.17501.42937.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578555C.9040907@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <f589865402b049f8a42dd63e7dc11287.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1BA8826B-9EF6-4028-842A-7218B74D70D1@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <72b52beda2b04a01034482b71b4c4869.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <557AFABE.9030105@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:33:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA93jw5huVTNdagAL0D9qwfwXA8T2U9htF276DM6k0m-y=UA_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/jDuELq-YdkNRpsCebUcA3ldI3GQ>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt
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: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:33:44 -0000

for many positive bullet points in the present document I can think of
a negative counter-example in the real world that needs to be defeated
in detail. Just off the top of my head:

3.2 tinc, when carrying tos, encapsulates the ecn markings also and
does not apply them properly according to the various rfcs.
3.3 recently: one large providers equal cost multipath implementation
used the full 8 bit tos field as part of the tuple. This worked fine,
until CE started getting exerted by new aqms in the path, which led to
massive packet re-ordering. Fixing it required fixing a ton of pretty
modern vendor gear.
3.4: thus far, even with multiple queues, on the aqms I have, ECN
marked traffic causes extra loss and delay in non ecn marked traffic.
I agree that we should ecn mark sooner than drop, work is progressing.

I would like it if non-traditional (ab)uses of ecn were covered - 1)
attacks using ecn marked packets on dns servers, for example - and 2)
future protocols that could use it (say, Quic).
3) as an example of something I've been fiddling with for a long time,
coupling a routing protocol's metrics to something other than packet
loss, and getting better "signal strength" by using ecn marked packets
for more reliable communications under congestion.

the draft touches upon voip uses (where I kind of think ecn is not the
best idea), but does not touch upon videoconferencing well, where I
think ecn protection of iframes would be a very good idea. So the
guidance in sec 2.4 is a bit vague.

aggregating transports with retries (e.g. wifi) could use ecn
basically "for free" when experiencing trouble at the lowest layers of
the stack.

I know I have a tendency to accumulate the negatives (I do LIKE ecn),
but would certainly like to have a fora, or a living document or wiki
for potential sysadmins, vendors, and deployers to have a clear grip
on what can go wrong when attempting to roll out ecn stuff.

So I am mostly in favor of this document getting published, so long as
someone steps up to also be an "ecn news central", chock full of user
generated content on the pitfalls, tips, and tricks - and benefits! -,
to guiding ecn deployment further along.

ecn is inevitable. finally.