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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 29 June 2010 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 80D743A689F; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Qp9hwC7Bp0tQ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17663A6C14; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAP7YKUyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACfR3GmPJpPhSQEg2k
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,506,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="228588914"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2010 18:31:01 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sjc-vpn6-179.cisco.com [10.21.120.179]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5TIUqeH015719; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:30:55 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:31:01 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:31:01 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1277739062.2166.6.camel@tng>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:29:08 -0700
Message-Id: <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>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 18:31:10 -0000

how many routers does it show that had ECN marking configured active?

On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF