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

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Tue, 29 June 2010 23:04 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 7F5D03A69F0; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.682
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.422, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 RQJ7vALHah5H; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode.ducksong.com (linode.ducksong.com [64.22.125.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B653A6957; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2DC3101F5; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:04:36 -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 C3E361014F; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:04:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC0290A4-358F-4486-91AD-6F7283442E73@cisco.com>
References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4502BE0741@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <D12F4EB3-3081-4CE0-BE1A-CBF9A2E2FCC9@nokia.com> <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A09227C84@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <1277739062.2166.6.camel@tng> <FC0290A4-358F-4486-91AD-6F7283442E73@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:04:39 -0400
Message-ID: <1277852679.2166.21.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] [multipathtcp] 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: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:04:25 -0000

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:29 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> how many routers does it show that had ECN marking configured active?

not a single ecn capable flow in the data contained a ecn-marked packet.
This was general Internet traffic, including a lot of spam SMTP flows
from abroad that you would think would have a reasonable chance of
seeing congestion.

I don't see how to identify which if any routers had ecn configured on,
but the implication is that it is very few if any. (or that there is no
congestion on "my" internet :)), right?