Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I am not sure what conclusions I should draw from this. 
Lossy AQMs is a non-issue as both DCTCP and Prague makes a fallback to loss
based recovery so that is settled.

That leaves us with the long discussion RFC3168 AQMs. Here the discussion
leaves me thinking that we are talking about a very limited actual
deployment in other words too much ado about very little. In addition, I get
the impression that these limited deployments are seen as monoliths that
cannot be modified and updated, which is a bit confusing too as fq_codel can
be configured for DCTCP..

So, my conclusion is that we should move on to WGLC, worries about possible
boxes on the network is something that can be quantified during the L4S
experiment.

/Ingemar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sebastian Moeller
> Sent: den 28 november 2020 18:07
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE
> 
> Hi Mikael,
> 
> I actually wanted to stay out of tis sub thread, but...
> 
> 
> > On Nov 28, 2020, at 17:24, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >
> >> Take a random sampling of CPE devices, and see how many of them use the
> above - or it might be easier to count the ones that don't.  I'll wait.
> >
> > My ubiquiti APs come with it, but it's default turned off.
> >
> > It's not only important of the devices have the capability, it also
needs to be
> default turned on so it's actually used (considering most people don't
change
> config much).
> 
> 	[SM] ... if end-user devices have such capabilities, the big ISPs
that in
> all likelihood are the biggest buyers of such devices, should have little
issues
> adding that to their requirements list for their purchases and making sure
> devices are configured properly, without driving up the costs unduly, no?.
> 	The fact that that has not happened is in itself a rather clear
indication
> that ISPs are really not that interested in tackling latency under load
(and why
> should they, often unhappy users will switch to a higher/more profitable
> speed tier in a well-intended but not very effective attempt at improving
a
> link's usefulness).
> 	Now, for end-users that is a different issue, and there are quite
some,
> often on-line gamers interested in reducing their internet access link's
> latency, that are actually willing to buy and configure boutique devices,
like
> the NetDUMA, or more down to earth and less hyped (but IMHO even more
> capable) evenroute's iqrouter. Incidentally, both are basically software
> distributions for relative standard existing router's from other
manufacturers,
> and yet people are paying a premium to get those better behaving router
OS,
> as latency under load performance of stock router OSes often is not
"cutting
> it"...
> 
> 	I note that L4S never reached out to those end-users actually caring
> for low latency... instead they are trying to convince the ISP market,
without a
> narrative how this is going to imprive an ISP's bottom-line (the you need
to do
> this to not fall behind the competition, is not a positive selling point
IMHO).
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian