IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] ECN support for UDP (was RE: [rmcat] [rtcweb] Catching up on diffserv markings)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 8006E1A0104; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 cKY_Vt6pSZlw; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (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 F308A1A00F5; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lfbn126 with SMTP id n126so49193486lfb.2; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3gjUNHQDUH3yLDFB3z11m6JH7VW5SUjWLoudeJuvFpg=; b=tcqOzQ3BVE8g+8LAhj4UuZjU95c32mXGc4CvgJAG648P2cQmeQc42tj8Pd/DOlXXBy zNCXEPE2qtJaV1/gCn9V275bToFoENoxu01942yjuv9bwPzccnyHbLgE5uEo4EzulDB/ VQvC9sSib+udn0VXJz96VrivuKmKiV4ACady9Y3lhzh0xZyf+FLIpjtRrKbg0CZJ679K 97X4b0OQDFIa00vVcBKnjm/NxD1io76KwLVGe4626vlZegTzuaZQZhlA7xL4FcHwgtj3 xlIRPYkZW38uM7yTit/UfqTemHN2SxmnVvd9si6K2/BGZmGKB/Dx/tdo8ywa2W0hxSj4 Yh7w==
X-Received: by 10.112.141.7 with SMTP id rk7mr10658965lbb.82.1445607146234; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (87-95-20-216.bb.dnainternet.fi. [87.95.20.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ut10sm3255918lbc.31.2015.10.23.06.32.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <81564C0D7D4D2A4B9A86C8C7404A13DA34C0AE3A@ESESSMB205.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:31:55 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B590EA62-2C01-46CE-BFF0-661FE7EE73DB@gmail.com>
References: <81564C0D7D4D2A4B9A86C8C7404A13DA34C0AE3A@ESESSMB205.ericsson.se>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/jvC3aIK0mjxEvYZo-ZXthSm8vME>
Cc: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, "cake@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] ECN support for UDP (was RE: [rmcat] [rtcweb] Catching up on diffserv markings)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:32:31 -0000

> On 23 Oct, 2015, at 11:40, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Network wise, I guess the support for ECN for UDP is a matter of configuration, but if one look from strict radio (LTE) perspective it does not really matter if it is UDP or TCP over IP, it is treated the same, thus the strategy for ECN marking should be the same and should preferably follow the guidelines in RFC7567.

All the Linux qdiscs I’m aware of that support ECN are agnostic to the transport layer in this respect.  If ECN capability is advertised in a packet’s IP header, it’s eligible for ECN CE marking.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email