Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN markings (#1626)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 01 August 2018 16:23 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F27F130DCD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 B1IVeYOy8wPo for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A88F126F72 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:23:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1533140620; bh=UqOxOIhYZFekDkcYx4668Nc3FFvusYxspF9+Y0T1Wzo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xAsm7xxRb9UimiVHQrT/au7FysnDyFr2LCuWDc+y7L3TOfulKvLywp9Af8kyx3Yjq s2lSxT/HDBwFjZksuM+plihFbL48jklJrAHIKZ7sKX3sxQVdGOgl3Gg0cl3tz7dEkX 9i1lgtg5FespgawA7lXn88+5AlsoWecyKLdtWFHk=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba5a6602f85aeb92e1b3cfe03879fa1f6ae51a2b092cf000000011779a08c92a169ce14a69ac0@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1626/review/142457293@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1626@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1626@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN markings (#1626)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b61de8c18bc1_2d123f9df50be6182812d1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0suasx8_L-FJWxkkUtI_bvM0Ksc>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:23:43 -0000
ianswett commented on this pull request. > +peer. Suppressing reports of ECN-CE markings could cause a peer to increase +their send rate. This increase could result in congestion and loss. + +An endpoint MAY attempt to detect suppression of reports by marking occasional +packets that they send with ECN-CE. If a packet marked with ECN-CE is not +reported as having been marked when the packet is acknowledged, the endpoint +SHOULD then disable ECN for that path. + +Reporting additional ECN-CE markings will cause a peer to reduce their sending +rate, which is similar in effect to advertising reduced connection flow control +limits and so no advantage is gained by doing so. + +Endpoints choose the congestion controller that they use. Though congestion +controllers ideally use reports of ECN markings as input, the exact response for +each controller could be different. Failure to correctly respond to information +about ECN markings is therefore difficult to detect. Clearly there are congestion controllers which don't support ECN, particularly not 3168 style ECN. As an example, DCTCP (RFC8257) specifies a mechanism which is different from 3168. Maybe we don't need this paragraph at all? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1626#discussion_r206945335
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN mark… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … Christian Huitema
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN … ianswett