IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [conex] Accounting of ConEx signals

Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Fri, 07 October 2011 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BDF21F8C19 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.867
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I3ko2vr4RN7t for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C3A21F8C15 for <conex@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA9B633B1; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:03:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from vpn-2-cl177 (vpn-2-cl177 [10.41.21.177]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A57B59A8A; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:03:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Organization: University of Stuttgart (Germany), IKR
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:03:00 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316)
References: <201110070115.27485.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> <20111007000031.GD2234@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20111007000031.GD2234@verdi>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201110071703.00140.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: conex@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [conex] Accounting of ConEx signals
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:59:53 -0000

Hi John,

I agree with you and Richard that usually it shouldn't make a big difference, 
but...

> > In TCP if a packet get lost (with SACK) we only know how many
> > payload got lost. We do not know the number of packets/headers
> > that were used to transmit this data. If we would lose one big
> > packet and then retransmit a large number of small packets instead
> > (which are all ConEx marked) that might give quite a different
> > ConEx signal.
>
>    (That's not an unreasonable case.)
... we have to consider those kind on cases if there might be a disadvantage 
or an advantage or even the possible to cheat the policing system for some 
users.

Mirja

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status