Return-Path: 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 B2F30130E3B for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:46:20 -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 6A9SnVpEdhoC for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:46:18 -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 9FF15130DDF for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:46:17 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1533141977; bh=3UFq1ehfjPwMnnBPHLmiOPd7VSRWxS/6i01D34mb7Jg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=inMo/e3wunIEpaACyOLBi7Y0amfnW0K6gqMIeS/G6+CuprhhOcGXwkUp2FKJwccPE /IQet/hdXTwEHzP4EJmCIOXyEnx4Z2ucBJRFPCcI7F3t/AA2/1a37JJ9n9/N2pO9U0 rsHXq2+VH3/0kDqGCQaUq5RzyzOw9HGg5sH8/VNc= From: mirjak Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consequences of bad ECN markings (#1626) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b61e3d9786d4_3dc13fe4a30d45b82126cb"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: mirjak X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:46:21 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5b61e3d9786d4_3dc13fe4a30d45b82126cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mirjak 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. DCTCP is not applicable to the Internet. The point being is that if you mark your packets as ECN-enabled, you also must react to CE marks accordingly, you can't just ignore them. I guess we can remove the whole paragraph or just this one sentence in the middle. -- 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_r206952526 ----==_mimepart_5b61e3d9786d4_3dc13fe4a30d45b82126cb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@mirjak commented on this pull request.

In draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md:

> +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.

DCTCP is not applicable to the Internet. The point being is that if you mark your packets as ECN-enabled, you also must react to CE marks accordingly, you can't just ignore them. I guess we can remove the whole paragraph or just this one sentence in the middle.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

----==_mimepart_5b61e3d9786d4_3dc13fe4a30d45b82126cb--