[LOOPS] Narrowing the scope: (2) End-to-end assumptions and ECN
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 25 May 2020 22:56 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240E43A00B2 for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UmDIjurQepcD for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A821A3A005D for <loops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.112] (p548dc699.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.198.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49WCC20DQTzyRp for <loops@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 00:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 612140205.463039-c681c5a6941d46972cfd8a9ca34288cd
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Message-Id: <170A51E5-F7E8-4E9C-9853-5E3EFCDE4F44@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 00:56:45 +0200
To: loops@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/vxgbxwr7jVPbHxwXrl8CeE6p6S8>
Subject: [LOOPS] Narrowing the scope: (2) End-to-end assumptions and ECN
X-BeenThere: loops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Local Optimizations on Path Segments <loops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/loops/>
List-Post: <mailto:loops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:56:51 -0000
In tomorrow’s LOOPS side meeting, we want to discuss whether we can narrow the initial scope of the WG sufficiently that the resulting charter looks more tractable (we can then recharter after delivering on the initial scope). The recovery performed by the LOOPS segment removes (or changes) the packet loss signal that is used for congestion control by the end-to-end traffic. One proposal was to focus on end-to-end traffic that is ECN-enabled (ECT(0) traffic). This would mean any congestion signal that LOOPS wants to provide could be relayed as CE marks, instead of potentially having to drop packets (which counteracts the objective of recovery) What we don’t have good numbers for yet is how much traffic today is ECT(0) or could easily be made ECT(0) by removing some obstacles, enabling the use cases of LOOPS. Comments are welcome on the list and/or in the meeting in ~16 hours. Grüße, Carsten
- [LOOPS] Narrowing the scope: (2) End-to-end assum… Carsten Bormann