Re: [conex] ConEx as sender side only modification

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
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 C8E9621F8D30 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 a+rql-trzlir for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DFF21F8D1F for <conex@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-a0-4ec2221862df
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 68.29.13753.81222CE4; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:26:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.53]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:25:59 +0100
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>, "conex@ietf.org" <conex@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:25:57 +0100
Thread-Topic: [conex] ConEx as sender side only modification
Thread-Index: Acyi7G1lvsYaNDVfT3ugbT7K+KHp6wAgr58g
Message-ID: <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC42D7A89A6F@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <20111030141755.21962.83789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20111107160135.GA45061@verdi> <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC42D7A26772@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se> <201111141742.38336.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
In-Reply-To: <201111141742.38336.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [conex] ConEx as sender side only modification
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:26:02 -0000

Thanks

This then means that a policer need to give some extra slack for normal TCP. It is perhaps doable with a policer that somehow has access to the TCP acks in the reverse direction and then can determine both RTT with a reasonable accuracy and also if TCP ECE is modified according to (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kuehlewind-conex-tcp-modifications-01.txt) 
Or is this perhaps simpler ?

/Ingemar

PS
Realized that I got things a bit backwards in my question below, thought that ECE is clamped to 1 for an RTT...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de] 
> Sent: den 14 november 2011 17:43
> To: conex@ietf.org
> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S
> Subject: Re: [conex] ConEx as sender side only modification
> 
> Hi Ingemar,
> 
> yes there are only sender-side modification needed. If you 
> only have the 'classic' ECN, you will only be able to get (at 
> max) one congestion notification per RTT. If there is more 
> than one CE marking per RTT you will underestimate the congestion.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> On Monday 14 November 2011 11:16:04 Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Have not been able to follow the ConEx list in detail but reading 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-briscoe-conex-initial-deploy-00.txt
> > I can see that received side modifications are optional.
> > This is of course interesting at least if consinder the 
> normal server 
> > client architecture as it is easier to modify a million 
> servers than a 
> > zillion clients. Assuming that I read right...
> > How does it work with TCP, I know TCP modifications have been 
> > considered to make TCP echo back the exact correct number 
> of ECN-CE to 
> > the server. Does this then mean that a TCP flow (unmodified 
> TCP) will 
> > state a higher congestion level in the dest-opts than the actual ?
> >
> > /Ingemar
> >
> > =================================
> > INGEMAR JOHANSSON  M.Sc.
> > Senior Researcher
> >
> > Ericsson AB
> > Wireless Access Networks
> > Labratoriegränd 11
> > 971 28, Luleå, Sweden
> > Phone +46-1071 43042
> > SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
> > ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
> > www.ericsson.com
> > =================================
> > _______________________________________________
> > conex mailing list
> > conex@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex
> 
> 
> 
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
> Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering 
> (IKR) University of Stuttgart, Germany Pfaffenwaldring 47, 
> D-70569 Stuttgart
> 
> tel: +49(0)711/685-67973
> email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
> web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>