Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4113A0AFF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PmEZILkl_mW9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756603A0AF8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id f18so3510674qkh.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=GGl5WXGiClNQtJ/HI04e/VcxfQEX+o93CCYu5TB5FHs=; b=VOhQ8LL7kl8Fd3Bhe3wRsweBgIJeSY4x6FNxW7uJGhaC3XVrRQpeW5H+i6pHCbwZaR KNuYEjkFSugvLB/93/D/yTqnfovK8zIymQn+MHzO7HbPGWFzyRB2WI8gjlqH/YaB1BiQ +5k6uhdCLzFy+cYHeo6z/uVlI6WW+KzQI9kOyPOkCMoabbB4NRgTJd74NVDNp3RSqrzu a/IufX+jKGoqxqtZtRu/he9Slzax8pMf/jxKv0bEvq525i093lIIoQFoDYbcaoSzV5R7 l/OIlSjTzvFK1uiREOCNL16XDry/O4mu6UerMTkLBK872E+M16FMEb1iDgQOAibmRlMF NyIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=GGl5WXGiClNQtJ/HI04e/VcxfQEX+o93CCYu5TB5FHs=; b=B9pjNBPm09D6w1EKu9b/6DQ3nnDzk/B2MKruRqdMkO8Nq8kQX4wCEDhaJkbQCAZdnq F8mTS9SMil79wdwFHh9dy+drqkxdx82VqeT9RGzxHvnzWv6PGqoPVdQ5swuHD1HuLOj5 965GdO1ZRWpiMSg0UjoLXO1Jz71RwWLr7tZNB+v/tPTQcf7uIvNIGj8GdHu3PdYnL4OE 78vpMokY9RhUEc0VknB03LACvFfzw3iJacUnbWh0IJU+3uPV+33JPt//F53gQX1kePrf mJRrTyAzcPtDppvaBssBrZmyMQ2jIwQBz2EWNQY3rUF2+LDqtLe5dNpb7NoyymWca4v0 5+QA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313w/54wc9D+NZ0VbtadohsmLH4a2s70pp31kbUpCSK3/S6XZlc QPNHzyoaG1IskB5C4PqWpzDYs950qdq7yg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/KykbR9VtMEFqqAeEmZ8J4L213Txr97B96nVyBr3vz5UteFX+FvXnH9WNqKXJcjd+PLnp8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1f4:: with SMTP id x20mr504425qkn.387.1592427610359; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 195sm106560qkl.37.2020.06.17.14.00.09 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <2DC5C89B-C979-4354-98D7-BBDBC78A42B1@gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB40450A06A919354C8D4CFC74839A0@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <9E403EBC-79D4-4C6E-B000-E53BE8B29228@gmx.de> <19188328.uKY2rrpm7d@linux-9daj>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <5998f017-4959-b9f6-96e2-831f512cd0ba@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:00:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19188328.uKY2rrpm7d@linux-9daj>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/GTC49AUYKAwroozKYWBq42lfgrM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:00:13 -0000

On 6/17/2020 4:50 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> to those who were confused when i referred to L4S as a datacenter protocol,
> this is why: getting into the microsecond vs. millisecond queue in an edge
> switch or router at the far-end campus or home or LAN won't change the lived
> experience of your application or user in any way since the packet is already
> a half dozen or more milliseconds from where it was born.


There are a number of URLLC scenarios that do not involve datacenters.