Re: [L4s-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Accurate ECN & TCP_CONGESTION & connect()
rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> Fri, 05 January 2024 20:20 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 BAAA3C1519AB for <l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:20:39 -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=ham 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 DSQCjjkW_-Vj for <l4s-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:20:35 -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 2F073C14F604 for <l4s-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E92951B258; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:20:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com E92951B258
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1704486034; bh=yVLqZ55TfHo1NlT6xXGxaH0Sg299HX8wIxWyDmDldvg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ojnh/neqk31MQXOt0E2vDwpSowzxXEWY/JQyDU7XGXFC+EE/av8SiPhwPHH7tdDxE AVS5u/+E9AZYLmb3isZRAIioXbi5VTtpbmtdZtkplXfWxoIQa0BhLMpgn4GdaxZKk8 FpUzpVK2Hq4J6z+b5yzVXEXR4uqvCfFHRx4j+NRg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 12:20:34 -0800
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
To: "Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)" <michael.overcash=40cox.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon=40rjmcmahon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <LV2PR01MB7622F169624727FB9D3E12069F662@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <26857481574d7771ef64cfd3756582fd@rjmcmahon.com> <LV2PR01MB7622F169624727FB9D3E12069F662@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <243b7bfa1276926295339654071fb648@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/ZR2Yo8qRyWDFqFOqWr6MKgOtE3c>
Subject: Re: [L4s-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Accurate ECN & TCP_CONGESTION & connect()
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 20:20:39 -0000
On 2024-01-05 06:45, Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta) wrote: > The ECR bits are part of the IP header and are not concerned with the > TCP 3-way handshake. This is also why UDP protocols can utilize L4S. > > If L4S is enabled after the TCP session is established, then the TCP > handshake packets will end up in the Classic Queue but subsequent > packets will go to the AQM queue. > What about accurate ECN? I assume this can only be enabled per the 3WHS. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn During the TCP handshake at the start of a connection, to request more accurate ECN feedback the TCP Client (host A) MUST set the TCP flags (AE,CWR,ECE) = (1,1,1) in the initial SYN segment. If a TCP Server (B) that is AccECN-enabled receives a SYN with the above three flags set, it MUST set both its half connections into AccECN mode. Then it MUST set the AE, CWR and ECE TCP flags on the SYN/ACK to the combination in the top block of Table 2 that feeds back the IP-ECN field that arrived on the SYN. This applies whether or not the Server itself supports setting the IP-ECN field on a SYN or SYN/ACK (see Section 2.5 for rationale). When the TCP Server returns any of the 4 combinations in the top block of Table 2, it confirms that it supports AccECN. The TCP Server MUST NOT set one of these 4 combination of flags on the SYN/ACK unless the preceding SYN requested support for AccECN as above. Once a TCP Client (A) has sent the above SYN to declare that it supports AccECN, and once it has received the above SYN/ACK segment that confirms that the TCP Server supports AccECN, the TCP Client MUST set both its half connections into AccECN mode. The TCP Client MUST NOT enter AccECN mode (or any feedback mode) before it has received the first SYN/ACK. Bob
- [L4s-discuss] Accurate ECN & TCP_CONGESTION & con… rjmcmahon
- Re: [L4s-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Accurate ECN & TCP_C… Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)
- Re: [L4s-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Accurate ECN & TCP_C… rjmcmahon
- Re: [L4s-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Accurate ECN & TCP_C… Neal Cardwell