IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Case for ECN-capable TCP control packets: draft-bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn

Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Sat, 16 July 2016 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378BC12D848; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GwfZE23xboHl; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22b.google.com (mail-qt0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4D6612B075; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j35so71224196qtj.2; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=MoAis9Li73HSpqn2SuwLp1E0y4p9gvUhZwYcB1G03WU=; b=ifHjFN8kUDRs0f7mbnZWuvbuwR4+BsTddhdbSuV99sv97t6XYnqj1o5SgszH0x2wyk jjXyypHxBqihLmAn821WhcqHWQhybvH9Mg5Ztq0+YOBhGrlrmt+QDfPmbTpKF5ba4Poy 0Zx8OUFh4+dunIR7oUR0lJO5SAQ5CRj2p0Zfc19lpNsh8DyleTf/CqIsbeHqZPqvEEjp Pt7THtUsD/QJeIO6KfLZE7qcjz26eJd+phnuMXifTFP/GYA6Dj0L0ywFHmQqmxh2yHHh i+ZOwCmDJ8jB1E/YuOBdOegIovwT/l307bMZQUavqsXF04fmOn6GtfXt+RWllooV+FBS tIgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=MoAis9Li73HSpqn2SuwLp1E0y4p9gvUhZwYcB1G03WU=; b=mUFplItvL2qkgpnfca0mDxlYBe3YCOf3WGWHuaXPw82zqAXnYWbnGFtqeH4cm+pQUx YV4WsJajHGHfRQW/4G5K6lsiG4cfMmC9mBQ4zCjCCe/nF1typ++UkebmoamyErBsxipy E7M56lYU2DTKRKFvgTAGD4wxh2x3MGbxFliOKrGhF09Ds0fdzW6HMloLKy/Cg5FWAyvJ j/yKXXx1eg88xkh0PM2H6FXNeGtOAbdZrA+sptDUXQJsBLwPz5Q1l7C4iqixHP79Lowd IIMQZYATnedgzqTbchvzdUOir9WqoFEYTwH4PzrzHe0tECwLGA1ZuW30HX934DaRmSro 2rIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLtlX5ZZpLcKChnmRxjCqxm+157SrughQILyHZxQkJEK33nmEu9tvVE4fjnJlZNwg==
X-Received: by 10.200.52.85 with SMTP id v21mr35654904qtb.21.1468663463748; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8c5c.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8c5c.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.140.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w16sm1968099qta.10.2016.07.16.03.04.21 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Jul 2016 03:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_678AEBE8-AFE1-415D-9C8E-C1A185CF2B94"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6CBDEF21-E2A2-4514-BA81-7EF930ABDAF9@trammell.ch>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:04:20 +0200
Message-Id: <8D821D3E-2924-4C74-8178-9E8AEBC9DD35@gmail.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5D88C0@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <57892BE9.4020309@bobbriscoe.net> <6CBDEF21-E2A2-4514-BA81-7EF930ABDAF9@trammell.ch>
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6RXxqHnPS1uZ5hso-rLlgWy1OEQ>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn@ietf.org" <draft-bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Case for ECN-capable TCP control packets: draft-bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:04:26 -0000

On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
> 
> There is one argument against ECN-marked control packets not appearing in 3168: the presence of ECT or CE marked TCP control packets is currently an indication of ECN signaling malfunction in the Internet, either due to buggy implementations or deployed boxes who still believe the ToS byte is the ToS byte.
> 
> In our measurement we haven't seen a lot of this (10^-5 - 10^-6 or so), but it seems relatively stable as long as we've been looking at it.
> 
> Allowing TCP control packets to use ECN marking will cause confusion between correct signaling and incorrect signaling, which makes this measurement methodology no longer available.
> 
> It's a minor problem, admittedly, but it will blind us to the ability to continue monitoring the de-deployemnt of these broken middleboxes and endpoints.

So, it isn’t a feature, it’s a bug?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email