Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-00.txt

Dave Taht <> Mon, 01 March 2021 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8A83A1E86 for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STfxPd8jEVx7 for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDD63A1E84 for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f10so14540235ilq.5 for <>; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:54:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=01Jk5cJCedrBukLNPGH4JpkqZ2cwk1FKzYHyBZGIVcE=; b=IMvAFexQnqEueNQwORCc22fb9smASuk+ek15F6IGWCuqmoi7UNkT7zLYwOQYjenrSs CnwykOYTAd8syaGxNjWBqnSvVn88H4da12iVu25Ju4foDxGllgc9So5EOmzuUH1kpZ95 oeAmk//NXM6eTI77OkIhFayhD0OPu3ca2quui2FrFEzcH9jSw2PXl/3oCt1S0SNhC67I 4mnWJLUDCsE8zp+l3YAFCme/s+6O+mXVLbu2c2ZK3qO/XQX9DGOINX5Gihv86izhAtGj yWrakr5eW6mlLiohAwmSr3RSZw8MctLqJkOh2UMNpeQnhRZXtvPu5qVQPo046dEpfEds cslw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=01Jk5cJCedrBukLNPGH4JpkqZ2cwk1FKzYHyBZGIVcE=; b=tO9cSBvFAsfKx66dvEIAVAJRpueh5sxkEE1Kh9kzO64Ar5/8RFjVJu50eIswB6bPk0 k80xtkcFFQ3eN2U38ZfHWmF9CK9m/KFWy6f0aGAW8FBLqmbSCW0a66OW6873S6y0INkQ bVsNcLjlwqi8dhDQNlSzkpTZ2bdQsyKPNtBCx8PQOyQvwxVf2MlXy0TEcQg9/j+SzMor K5e1E4WoirsL6OpR6Z1lm7VjN+dksjI44+EK1s+EmOvSjOVv5Kh5m0g/XUp89X35Pgri gvUMbnTPB7Wq4Upihm25D5Hr4241XVVxqX5jw0iOZ+sgp9BdWCunN0Hj5Fem3QS+GuNc ZlXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j9xoNVuFV8FF7oB85DoHCo4QpAx6dmLAadZbECa4e8HpQKv9r HxrtE6jYyMMLX0gKtiyFtYixP2uf1XQUib+etDc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3PGeb/QR/nSbmGb+Rrud4yGjGPQD7LYLpSFLaShLmTri1hEtRlwi7mDB9TIcPFhByCJkGbCzhZizB6WGx3j8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f06:: with SMTP id x6mr12646260ilj.287.1614614075616; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:54:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dave Taht <>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:54:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Jonathan Morton <>
Cc: Martin Duke <>, TSVWG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 15:54:39 -0000

I had pinpointed a whole bunch of mismarked ecn traffic over
bittorrent to an ISP in argentina last year. In fact, all their
traffic was mismarked. I can find the relevant IPs...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Morton <> wrote:
> > On 27 Feb, 2021, at 1:31 am, Martin Duke <> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if the non-TCP ECN traffic is QUIC? I don't think the main implementations are doing it, but there are a few ECN-capable implementations in production.
> This would be a reasonable interpretation of traffic on ports typically used with HTTP or similar L5 protocols.  We have, similarly, interpreted non-TCP traffic using ports commonly associated with tunnel protocols as actually being (at least partly) TCP through a tunnel.
> However, most of what we saw was on random high ports, and some that are most often used by BitTorrent clients.  So we think it's probably due to BT clients trying to do "clever" things with TOS/DSCP but misunderstanding it.  I believe the default in libtorrent is to set CS1, correctly, so I don't know which particular clients might be so affected, or whether it is due to end users setting manual firewall mangle rules incorrectly.
> Since the data collection tool we used doesn't have a way to unambiguously discriminate between QUIC and any other UDP-supported protocol, it's difficult for us to say more about how much QUIC-ECN was seen.  If you have a criterion we could use for that, we might be able to build it into a future run.
>  - Jonathan Morton

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729