Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 03 March 2015 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 403CB1A008A for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:20:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fgwn-6O0IcPp for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80A91A036E for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:20:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3916; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425403222; x=1426612822; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=wHJHEx5/aq24faO2EnMppxI4yI2jyG+EFKEx5hT566I=; b=g47mYNZp6LWxh5NtJ/z7uC7iQ6ph252Msqm27bCj9ok/hS1gLhkamI8I oCLwa83MaWMtGeas83SAbm32oQl6fPo2FdSRqtlZZWF5mMRpc84HafUIA lxI6abjY92kgarihCKw4Z3CDJNfeOUPpAEFysCRZfEHntD8ktxdNM6EMD I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CuBQDi7PVU/4YNJK1agj9DgSwExzQCgShNAQEBAQEBfIQPAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgEFC4hESUCBA4FDogNAwkI0RYNhRABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXixKCRIIqB4MXgRQBBI95gWGBLoRygUiNU4YMI4Nub4FEfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,682,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="128515389"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2015 17:20:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t23HKLZL024835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:20:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.149]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:20:20 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
Thread-Index: AQHQVdZS6qKPtbDINUGIJqwbjfJDQw==
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:20:19 +0000
Message-ID: <F2745259-5DEB-49B1-AB7C-C8E4E1217360@cisco.com>
References: <CAA93jw7KW=9PH002d3Via5ks6+mHScz5VDhpPVqLUGK2K=Mhew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7KW=9PH002d3Via5ks6+mHScz5VDhpPVqLUGK2K=Mhew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.116]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E945017A-2673-43FC-94D7-1741C7B0DC61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/wh9PRRWvuQ_2glJs88poDj4uW0Q>
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <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: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:20:23 -0000

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in
> sqm-scripts?

IMHO, ping should go at the same priority as general traffic - the default class, DSCP=0. When I send one, I am asking whether a random packet can get to a given address and get a response back. I can imagine having a command-line parameter to set the DSCP to another value of my choosing.