[tsvwg] ECN packet counters from a Czech ISP

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Sun, 22 November 2020 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3694C3A0888 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heistp.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9zKI2rEt8usP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 9E4023A082F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id s8so16254867wrw.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0bJ1pCOJb1iH9g0H4Z8JHHz38bq0aY6skUMzOzdj7tQ=; b=e0zGh2XLU/KwZTtyCzFnoX0x7B3sdWtvcViEP6FtVYKBgFWYGjiSjNg2AX+7KthAAA A68pmobp/C+cBhIayl5ZJizhnBvgIuqgdRb+jCVdmpjNnKPq578Lqq7HEnTX02a+aT8U sGrjE0tUnL8hnZX7NTAreNXsjuq13KIBUp3dC+b5kU0X8/AYtHe5pG0C8BaKq9eEIIdh voP/+S5sB+GjublUqW/BdisHlLI2vMjYhMQEamERUnmgw33Pvt4KY07Z89QTW6nZd6Zt RV7ELjjwOafBPMLDAzpe8Mu9trhE1rDfAV5la2SGyZSRjFJ8TvYDZ4z4rMKCJKjqkzec en7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0bJ1pCOJb1iH9g0H4Z8JHHz38bq0aY6skUMzOzdj7tQ=; b=b7TV5knqX3906oCib+Uf5USc80Qv0mWlubfC4dZ/uIerTjU1JDaf0EXJqC7xnpNRkK rTKBSdG6FhGdAmcQHhHm+U4eXphuMboRNM1gjC3KUSLC0uf4cdFY58OWciG5BC+ai3l+ cKhP53L6u8ArxFDmadnhbyZmSSbhun+i1B5BnFQVXgMtK6bkk2tiv6Xb7Onjr+/c5nKT w45751rMfhWTFlFG8XUXoK0dNhbtxXPh4DTyd1kxgHuVsKYHvBWjq1nT7X3jtjXbrKcS CGXbHq54AvW2GMgk/QBogBawMn2TO99+HSiWsF3ygmPhPZ4iWkcsyEt89Xo1IX6+b8Ax tmlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532CxbTOwKKLmUUirHi6EQMTxsujYwrCk5bjD0RLa/LHQsfHidGL RmTeGyvR0L9GAJiys3+f7ZBEcKAoHMctcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlTJbzHNtYH+If3IKU1BirEB+I1UuZYgsgn2blbE/Da+s+Fk9aWvvWByA56OEoYoC3Ouc9rQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6783:: with SMTP id v3mr25953069wru.45.1606069352491; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. []) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c62sm11395580wme.22.2020. for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <b10fe41dd3d0128959bea751c460085e8cfcb76f.camel@heistp.net>
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:22:31 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/H7l0sHQ1rWM12nRiONTis4TQJOs>
Subject: [tsvwg] ECN packet counters from a Czech ISP
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: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 18:22:36 -0000

There's been some discussion starting around how much ECN negotiating
and marking is going on on the Internet. Although we know of a number
of vendor products that ship with fq_codel and mark by default, and
following the precautionary principle seems appropriate with congestion
control signals, beyond just vendor lists and anecdotal experience it
would also help to try to look at some ECN stats, globally if possible.

Earlier this year I was able to convince the cooperative ISP I belong
to in Czech to gather some simple ECN counter stats at the gateway with
iptables. We ran counters for around 30TB of traffic over 11 days. I've
finally taken the time to post those results:


We intend to write up a further analysis of these results and what the
implications are for our recent l4s-tests batch, but I see no harm in
posting the data first.

Caution #1: As warned in the repo, it's always possible that something
is wrong with the way this data was collected or how the packet matches
work in this particular environment. However, the results appear sane,
he said hopefully.

Caution #2: Before seeing a low number or percentage and drawing a
conclusion, make sure to understand what those numbers mean. Also,
there are also some limitations to the stateless counter approach, but
I still think there's some useful info here as well.