Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

[Dan Siemon <[e-mail]>]

Long time lurker, first time contributor so I'm not sure if that means
my vote counts or not...

My vote is #3 (more testing) because I don't have a complete enough
understanding of L4S to be firmly against it and I don't fully
understand the tunnel marking implications. Second choice is ECT as
output.

My interest and concern in this comes from the point of view of a
vendor [1] that offers traffic management solutions for the fixed
wireless market [2]. We use FQ-CoDel but at this point have not widely
enabled ECN (the little experimentation we've done looks promising).

My rational is as follows:
* One of the reasons that DSCP hasn't taken off, in addition to the
coordination problem, is that without per-subscriber isolation, it will
be gamed. I do not understand why a new classification scheme would not
suffer the same fate.
* The improvement with a modern AQM is already dramatic.
* It's "weird" that in the "ECT(1) as input" option, of the four ECN
combinations, three are related to congestion control and one is a
special, 'DSCP doesn't work so we stole it for classification' value.
Explaining that outside of this forum may not be fun.
* SCE (ECT(1) as output) is more intuitive to me.
* Most fixed wireless networks are flat IP with little tunnelling and
use simple equipment that I'm skeptical will adopt L4S. These networks
host millions of subscribers in the U.S. alone.

[1] - https://www.preseem.com
[2] - https://www.wispa.org/what_is_a_wisp.php

On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 14:15 -0400, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>  In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the
> following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended
> discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing
> your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (
> [e-mail]). 
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting
> video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on
> this question.
> 
> I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the
> approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does
> not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the
> remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the
> current drafts.
> I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is
> consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the
> internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this
> group.
> There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a
> decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your
> response.
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
>