Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 10:49 UTC
Return-Path: <andrewmcgr@google.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 E75181A86F8 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:49:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9nAxkhZHS2nV for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) (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 E77951A86F7 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:49:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcxr5 with SMTP id r5so23719286qcx.10 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 02:49:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OtxL2AWI1gj9NeZE9x6cdx50DTiwgqaXK80ix60wD0s=; b=ixxNDdN8CfaKTigLk4bOcvPV1Xcz95ZLcTIBjVYSf3p6apn6UNT0IVDz9E6Jm6YaZx 4GHzXBWNxGiWVw+Nk41iRnZZQCiSeDtP+Eoizkh+VUOoHJvuNoE2s5Ucfhc3HtmQJrdt FawUwZpcFdee6Xsx/56p2bkoUZnIHvgXVaB9b+wAxKM9tMluAFEbXD8qE9+HGM6fA2c0 HODkiKN2k30sb81/dq5ap+bhpKzUU+AKMUk5LYr37cC8GHEhOyA9YtVZZrcUDFaM2wKI 2MZPIZCt6pLA95nQW+lnlsNZ9vwvBWZS8rw2TULNtEJkQ/mbk2+oB4+Ku7CAgUxKAekP 5UqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OtxL2AWI1gj9NeZE9x6cdx50DTiwgqaXK80ix60wD0s=; b=SDIT4cqP6UkKku7K+iLE7R5edehh3MNXrPbSujZGGZb84EEeL4R18mNo4Nwop2h/HK 8pwl95pXyCYXxy9c+hhEWvpaS2f2Zj6UpQPB2bXE2s47uQIQH7a+KLcddqWaxuBQg+Ps nHXROdjpaIvXatzbI1s6C2/jweVpd4S/JiYyqCNZ0GGv8/zedhke9zLWEyGMOwdYaYvy AthBW1BNmp6iKWd/J7UmIfU7H2ynkThlamiu05V8qq8d9ciBntbz64Z+ApyhUsdlP0Rl L69rDOAZBEOp9pID1EM0ZbrsF6/Xe4yy1Z2qBMafpQWovZgMXvdX9XyV9vZ5QW9FlsAK nGOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmg55Cbl7wAl86nc3fQIW+Qq7fAsImRo9rE57iYr+3F/87N3Z64mTG5NvdjP6LmQflfDav7
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.251.137 with SMTP id ms9mr284031qcb.22.1425293362135; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 02:49:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.68.74 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:49:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830B5875D@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
References: <CAA93jw7KW=9PH002d3Via5ks6+mHScz5VDhpPVqLUGK2K=Mhew@mail.gmail.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830B5875D@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:49:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAPRuP3n0tbFKJyPwpr3ntb7abXgyRRhtH23aeeYzvj9mgj_G8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com>
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11348e188d27d705104bf8f5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/tDncqInU_s3le_9XrEqZD1sayuQ>
Cc: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "dave.taht@gmail.com" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
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 10:49:25 -0000
So, are you suggesting that, for example, Chrome's rather extensive network debugging information get more publicised? We can probably arrange that. On 2 March 2015 at 21:47, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> wrote: > I'm rather new to the aqm community, but IMHO, it is wrong to deprioritize > the ping traffic by default. I would not have expected a forwarding agent > to do this. > > And I think measuring ping times and loss is a reasonable thing to do, > never expecting forwarding agents along the path to place more value on > some IP packets than others. (Especially in my own network/lab when I did > not configure such a policy) > > There aren't many tools available to an end user. Ping, traceroute, speed > test... The network is a black box to most users. > > As for the flood attack aspect, of course a flood of pings should wait > their turn in a queue and be dropped as the queue fills. > > It would be appropriate if this was fair to different ping flows in the > same way TCP SYN packets are treated fairly. Treat ping flood like TCP SYN > flood. > > My 2cents. > -Dave Dolson > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave Taht [mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:57 PM > To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net < > cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; aqm@ietf.org <aqm@ietf.org>; bloat < > bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> > Subject: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" > > On this thread over here, an otherwise pretty clueful user chose > openwrt's qos-scripts over the sqm-scripts, because sqm-scripts had > *higher ping loss*. > > > http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=61634.msg251125#msg251125 > > (I note that both fq_codel enabled QoS systems outperformed > streamboost by a lot, which I am happy about) > > wow. It never registered to me that users might make a value judgement > based on the amount of ping loss, and in looking back in time, I can > think of multiple people that have said things based on their > perception that losing pings was bad, and that sqm-scripts was "worse > than something else because of it." > > sqm-scripts explicitly *deprioritizes* ping. In particular, this > reduces the impact of ping floods from ipv6 to your entire /64, or to > your whole ipv4, fairly well. And I had made the point that > prioritizing ping was a bad idea here (including some dripping sarcasm > later in the piece). > > http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Wondershaper_Must_Die > > but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was > the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb. > > I use netperf-wrapper and tend to ignore most of the ping data, but > certainly on some benchmarks we have published ping doesn't look as > good as the other stuff, *because it is deprioritized below all the > other traffic*. Not strictly rate limited - as some systems do by > default, including openwrt, which is impossible to get right - just > deprioritized.... > > How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in > sqm-scripts? > > -- > Dave Täht > Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > -- Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewmcgr@google.com | +61 4 1071 2221
- [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Brian Trammell
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Dolson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… dpreed
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Brian Trammell
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Wes Felter
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Dolson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Wes Felter
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Wesley Eddy
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… dpreed
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Rich Brown
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Matt Taggart