IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: ECN in QUIC

"Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ilubashe@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3EC126BF3 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 9Kbdg42H4JAB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99779129C6A for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w0P6R8Rd018166; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:29:56 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=BV47wUfCV9hZg5GSgyHJ6NJO0iJU3Mjfe0L5XQgtUeE=; b=hww46yqoqiOnSTJ7ffghXRzYq17SXNDshCS3V9gyMYcxLaLVB+Wiht712Xoh7HL+zfJS k/tV/XhH+ZHf012myyp6UwQXcZ/7t6kk0skV6AZl5EfXaxWriK+p3QWY6d0LvPfj3F7e dv8xXrl2rHskF5z84kZpMk+aHYBfoOABdXyr9P+vGTYLjd897WeGFqtspsAMOBCl5x3Z Nn+FRqtbmzq6oI54Am6LrWRjJUCIpW9/i7YhgAu/pnNti7PRm/kfkw2QiwXZJpsFst71 vnZ+4ZRvimBxgmA9+5V+axnPcPMfs8ulK7gF6yAegeEYV0JNX5I1ogLsAvqzpCFRqpdi CQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2fpbgx01fc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:29:56 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w0P6QW8N019078; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:29:55 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2fp9tvd00w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:29:55 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:29:54 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.105]) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.105]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:29:54 -0500
From: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
CC: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, "Bob Briscoe (research@bobbriscoe.net)" <research@bobbriscoe.net>, "koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Subject: RE: ECN in QUIC
Thread-Topic: ECN in QUIC
Thread-Index: AdOU5RXtZ09Jc7GvQAiw71TPDqLU5QATWZUQAAeBn1AADTxqAAAJCiHAAAigEwAACgVbwA==
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:29:53 +0000
Message-ID: <a05e899c3b7b45d38e6e4440e5196304@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <HE1PR0702MB3625F6E2C399F7E6F187C883C2E20@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <660743ab697443f4ac5500e649a80285@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <HE1PR0702MB3625648A6943055201D46DCEC2E20@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <26dd29d9-ce96-e858-078b-cc867990e8c5@huitema.net> <26b97168c48047018d1dfe6400a36b16@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <A4AE8394-0568-4C56-A4C3-02866E12DA8C@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <A4AE8394-0568-4C56-A4C3-02866E12DA8C@trammell.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.33.239]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-25_01:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=705 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801250089
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-25_01:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=701 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801250089
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/wPVvIsnxKuCkzStEIEj1o7E_eaY>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:31:11 -0000

> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:03 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] wrote:
>
> I'll also note that in the current Internet case (no L4S or DCTCP, sporadic deployment of CE-marking routers), there are opportunities for large savings with the bitmap approach through trivially simple compression (maybe even as simple as a special representation for "all of these packets were 0/ECT0/ECT1").

Completely agree.

That's exact why I had ACK and ACK-ECT frames in my proposal (see earlier in the thread) -- to make "all packets have no ECN markings" and "all packets are ECT" cases cost 0 bytes.  The common case today would cost nothing.  When some path gets "interesting", it would start costing ~2 bits per packet.

(See Parts 1&2 and ignore Part 3, which has a per-ACK_Block instead of a per-packet bitmap: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/quic/current/msg02973.html).

- Igor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email