IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Long tail of TCP stacks (was: RE: draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-24 addressingallWGLCcomments)

rs.ietf@gmx.at Wed, 27 September 2023 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
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 E32ECC15109A for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 01:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmx.at
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWfFSqcsOuaz for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 01:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF5BEC151096 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.at; s=s31663417; t=1695802674; x=1696407474; i=rs.ietf@gmx.at; bh=EwvSblKWWZI7gATWcWnb9ZI2eGi13zMJy6Vpibh7KkE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=NI2r4xyzGrLPmaN//a+yLPlYHI+TcdZtzcDypZ0Ln34VM2/EKXK4bZRDTDxSDixcGz1QY1FWXc2 3cE6hV99ebfO6QJix4E9EiWf5p/bNCK1P0Kn/xzrNScA9Rwm4T3lCS2kKXNBtbz8uQo0ZIhzDjE9z xkuqs3kS0g2JSeD482D872XAa6VCrZ57vFNpgiciuxf+8LUpnortAjXBFjj+LVVuGwS59r4WJmy6o 74yDxkdr4fVGAUHm0WNhs5uY8IPANjRb9K7RizMnczW2yBrvdn0CCRmjI3bvcwhNwrXjV2aZONBf+ Wdw9CwfocfFb3vCS7haHUyaW57PRWRAEwsNA==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from [192.168.0.52] ([213.225.13.130]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MN5if-1r3lRP0x5Z-00J1tL; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:17:54 +0200
Message-ID: <b09d7cf0-7ba9-b02b-b79e-6fc1d61d9d7c@gmx.at>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:17:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
From: rs.ietf@gmx.at
Reply-To: rs.ietf@gmx.at
To: tcpm@ietf.org, "Scharf, Michael" <michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <556e9011-df92-c163-26c5-512922148289@cs.helsinki.fi> <ef47249e-ba83-9862-d6f0-5d4fadbed43f@bobbriscoe.net> <9741ae21-b8a1-918c-d77a-c46adcfb55f@cs.helsinki.fi> <EAD0BD56-D347-4309-B974-232A7938A24A@fh-muenster.de> <b6f0aa13-eb91-c4f0-4ad8-9344a5673847@cs.helsinki.fi> <0b7554b6c65e4724ab6bbe04181f8252@hs-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <0b7554b6c65e4724ab6bbe04181f8252@hs-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:UEA0xLM7lwVZ2sWmC63e0yZs3o/IngRDzdijOM7VBdvtGPRC+8B qGOo2lBW0tzstE5IxO4nCdl/VBaQ7JdtGPJdkrvFkKU++kAy50S4Iml2ItJgAXG+/woNqlP hcH9o/Crd5gT/8JayxewprplFNf81q8+Df0saLJoREavc5JyC6gzipYgfaIRjaV+Yz337m2 etwq8dgYDrpuhFq4hk6VA==
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:enllTGcAM8Q=;DSEhV9dwmdHhJBQBEyjjzh1a9Z+ GzklOyIMuRhajQMPhGQ5G38syl7zPKWsDGOIP3e875MWWaqZ8dwdd9WS1l/Q8CsxmKnu6clqq UiNAQ1vJK38xpDD9OfCAqv0Ky5Uj2nqLoE71X4eXQKNHwXlqFUnPV+UvynBU3KX7N2CK7PdKE Hr11wQmDQkPv5B067aT3NJMrB7hb0KLQa32fOQ9rLCpl2nmG5o211lJoDW+snTMzdoyCrQ8ms NY7azI3K8jPEpdOfl7FjxH92tzsiTE0+tu94gpok2R60TtW1dMTCV+3briN4Sa1N/YCx5v/Pj a37qNsIhJfMV/91TPWMjIe7Clo2uizxIquazkjMzz4Dc6Hy79Nu04W4TdcMiOYBJGdM1mg6SU OKavHxi7IFyEiE9rAB1t5q5j43h8gMBh+wXnNFfJEVb1mqx9invO+aoK0CMsZo+IvIA7UoXZS 9tDaGcOwxNI8Z3GvFtASBtsMvEXnOOxOGBjynbNGCBkjp+UYIjszGWbnxqF4ioLliAUyk1M3J 5EAVImhcLjauxCWcM9HHjWXWkVstNpudlkv1tCXIzvM2v2av2MGTTvhOrIP3GzfwXdb9rWFNV ayUQEjp5TYiwDg6rY33ae2uF1fzT2kVxgWZHS1IsE75m9nhwY1lsNzGUbszM9qNLo7GWBQpz2 KzISu7ghJskM/aiLHXebORqevhYw6M8Qxa+X2qXKSq7DMZb2ZM2PYZhsZBqqjIXB7qomxn8Ut gmSKafQLdnvDDvxd9wEsCKVWbQ4Sos4aXBQ7LnpUoB/XOVNTlj8NDMza9uf+fG2r0N9vjNRBq Eu4ZOG2rnND6BzE3aioZXDlThhyOJiSvcSNupUVHAsneJ1V3NxBTYFYpRsa1SCUab0WTFuHz6 N9MjP2Dun3J20NAlmASro4zQXUbevQ7GSYXnmC7mW4bfKhSXYiLLEgRYMkV5rAb1HjiqFNAQa eELMGdr22cV6G0WAmMz/v2AOp28=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/govQpG_uvvpWO35vpSMdfaVMAMQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Long tail of TCP stacks (was: RE: draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-24 addressingallWGLCcomments)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:18:04 -0000

Out of curiosity, did you investigate how many of these IoT stacks support ECN (negotiation, ECT-marking of sent messages, and RFC3168 ECE/CWR feedback)?

WOuld be interesting to see, if SACK or ECN is more prevalent in these implementations...

Richard



Am 23.09.2023 um 12:01 schrieb Scharf, Michael:
> In don't plan to get involved into this WGLC discussion and this e-mail is not about AccurateECN.
>
> Yet, I have a general comment related to the long tail of TCP stacks...
>
>>> How many stacks are out there not supporting TCP SACK? How many of
>> them will implement
>>> ECN++?
>>
>> [MK5] I think tens if not hundreds, when all various devices like network
>> printers and stacks in various IoT appliances, vehicles, etc are counted.
>
> [...]
>
> I think this number from Markku is realistic. See also RFC 9006.
>
> I have recently surveyed some IoT stacks. Well, there is really a large number of different TCP/IP stacks out there. Some only support the most basic standard track TCP features (if at all).
>
> In TCPM (and the IETF as a whole), IMHO we often focus on desktop and server operation systems. Yet, in IoT and some other network domains that increasingly get connected to the Internet, TCP/IP implementations can be different to what is the default in Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. I believe that, as of today, one cannot assume that all TCP stacks relevant for the Internet indeed support and enable SACK. Of course, the same applies to ECN.
>
> For what it is worth, one example mentioned in RFC 9006 is lwIP (Leightweight TCP/IP). Recent versions of lwIP support at least sending SACK options, but the logic is very simple (as far as I understand). As far as I can tell, lwIP is fairly sophisticated as compared to other IoT stacks that are much more rudimentary.
>
> Recently I tried to come up with a simple lwIP example for my students. I ended up creating an echo server example that runs in Linux user space: https://github.com/michael-scharf/lwip-echoserver
>
> If someone else is interested in playing with lwIP, maybe such an example can help...
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email