IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Fwd: Probing the viability of TCP extensions

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Mon, 28 June 2010 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF7328C144; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.105
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnpb3i-BEgdb; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode.ducksong.com (unknown [64.22.125.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA253A6A66; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F3AD10157; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:31:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.16.214] (cpe-67-253-92-25.maine.res.rr.com [67.253.92.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D02AC1014F; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A09227C84@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4502BE0741@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <D12F4EB3-3081-4CE0-BE1A-CBF9A2E2FCC9@nokia.com> <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A09227C84@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:31:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1277739062.2166.6.camel@tng>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Multipath TCP Mailing List <multipathtcp@ietf.org>, tcpm@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: Probing the viability of TCP extensions
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:31:48 -0000

On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 00:13 +0100, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:

> I am curious, out of the 1,07% of Hosts where ECN negotiation was
> successful, is there any indication that internet routers are actually
> making use of the ECT / CE codepoints in the IP header?
> 

I have a blog post from 2007 on a different, much smaller, data set:

http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2007/08/lamenting-ecn-deployments.html

Basically, it looks at a small sample of 41K flows from my home network
and sees 8% of them negotiated ECN end to end (which certainly skews
high), but doesn't see a single instance of a packet being marked by a
router.

just one data point.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email