Re: [L4s-discuss] L4S socket options

rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> Tue, 12 December 2023 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
X-Original-To: l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790A0C40399F for <l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:59:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rjmcmahon.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_XCa6aHMh6F for <l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B96EC47A200 for <l4s-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4FBCE1B25E; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:59:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 4FBCE1B25E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1702357156; bh=uciwZNlwlaskrwU+PAUq3l2orfwoBAB5/7mL30t86G0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=aV3pfNtxR6j/XCS1Ozs8qXGuXkCM+1Vs1wiJVIbl2v0K7HUowzDq5oGWrmqSN9rej hm77Pj/29fLTEqcaLHgnN2WqML7QxcfWHtTdbcZwEoHoJ7TKyu0Y/GSGkooBT+aAN7 GQrIIC4Ciey//teOWBiuN27yu5MV5TkbE/WQ69jU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:59:16 -0800
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
To: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon=40rjmcmahon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: l4s-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <a8091db4a9eec4e86eb111f44a541aa2@rjmcmahon.com>
References: <a8091db4a9eec4e86eb111f44a541aa2@rjmcmahon.com>
Message-ID: <b50c1d9ec973672e0c20b8aeeb4b992e@rjmcmahon.com>
X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l4s-discuss/6nKG5dYJmB2X5e9gYKFxRgPsfiM>
Subject: Re: [L4s-discuss] L4S socket options
X-BeenThere: l4s-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput \(L4S\) " <l4s-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l4s-discuss>, <mailto:l4s-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l4s-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:l4s-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l4s-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l4s-discuss>, <mailto:l4s-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 04:59:21 -0000

To clarify my question a bit. At the IETF 117 hackathon, I had to set 
both CCA's to prague for L4S to work properly. I originally only set the 
iperf client to prague and the iperf server ran reno. I was told they 
had to be set the same so I passed the client's CCA to the server as 
part of iperf's test exchange. So the server now starts and accepts() 
with reno (if no CCA is set on the server side) and after the connect 
will apply the CCA passed to it from the client, i.e. it's app level and 
not transport level exchange.

I didn't understand if this is required in future apps or if this was 
just something needed per the code level provided for the hackathon.

Bob
> Hi All,
> 
> Is there a set of socket options for L4S, specifically how can iperf 2
> enable & disable the low latency handling by the stack and network
> elements on an established flow? Currently, I've been assuming all
> prague CCAs will be treated as low latency and that's seemed to work.
> 
> I think I may be missing a setsockopt() option or two. Thanks for any
> clarifications here.
> 
> Bob
> 
> PS. Any pointers to relevant kernel header files are appreciated.