Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)
mirjak <notifications@github.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 09:56 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 5E00A12011B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 1AYbBi0TrENJ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 940A4120044 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 02:56:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1565258190; bh=WvfpegETb3NsSpuOYK255wQG7IqZ6YyAl1PcZYnlRW8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dD3JjAcYPOu+9AEWOUXAoebqlWZ7Hgfk2S4ON95MEOTv+FSP9ytcGjikAOCR1vrfO ifubDlX/1sX8tNJQGWVNxr0z5e93pf9P49+BGlspRXq+jwkhHAJeMyU8zrWA+rIkZL /fUgD43y4GNwwKBVuHxxrHnq2A92cj2fZe9NJrts=
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2K5STEOM4RHAE7PG53LESE5EVBNHHBVKABIA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752/review/272462951@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4bf1ce7c3b7_5e6c3fd6234cd9641531ba"; 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/stxe4Dyv8MlEFztq9GpGBThSKcA>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 09:56:34 -0000
mirjak commented on this pull request. > +To start ECN validation, an endpoint SHOULD do the following when sending +packets on a new path to a peer: + +* Set the ECT(0) codepoint in the IP header of early outgoing packets sent on a + new path to the peer {{!RFC8311}}. + +* If all packets that were sent with the ECT(0) codepoint are eventually deemed + lost {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, validation is deemed to have failed. + +To reduce the chances of misinterpreting congestive loss as packets dropped by a +faulty network element, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint in the first +ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever occurs +first. Implementations MAY experiment with and use other strategies. An +endpoint could send the first ten packets interleaved: five packets marked with +ECT(0) or ECT(1) interleaved with five unmarked packets. An endpoint could also +simply send all packets marked with ECT(0) or ECT(1) until validation fails. Maybe say: "When the expected risk of ECN-based blackholing is low, an endpoint can also simply send all packets marked with ECT(0) until validation fails." I would also like to point people to some measurement data, e.g.: "Recent studies have detected potential ECN-related connectivity problems in less than 0.3% [ECNmeasure]" [ECNmeasure] Brian Trammell, Mirja Kühlewind, Piet De Vaere, Iain R. Learmonth, and Gorry Fairhurst. 2017. Tracking transport-layer evolution with PATHspider. In Proceedings of the Applied Networking Research Workshop (ANRW '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 20-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3106328.3106336 > + +* If all packets that were sent with the ECT(0) codepoint are eventually deemed + lost {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, validation is deemed to have failed. + +To reduce the chances of misinterpreting congestive loss as packets dropped by a +faulty network element, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint in the first +ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever occurs +first. Alternate strategies are possible. For example, an endpoint could send +the first ten packets interleaved: five ECT(0)-marked packets interleaved with +five unmarked packets. This allows the endpoint to more clearly identify +congestive loss as such. Implementations MAY experiment with and use other +strategies. + +#### Receiving ACK Frames + +An endpoint that sets ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints on packets it transmits MUST RFC8311 does not define use of ECT(1) as interchangeable with ECT(1) anymore and therefore advises endpoints to only use ETC(0) which classic ECN. I think it's right to only talk about ECT(0) here, or if you want to mention that ECT(1) should also use for experimentation with new ECN based signal approaches, you have to point to RFC8311. -- 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/2752#pullrequestreview-272462951
- [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752) Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#… Martin Thomson