IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 20 March 2019 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 EAA7E130F84 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 5zcQLx0qhye1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 ABEB31310CD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1553077033; bh=yJNqzPD8rF98lktghN8BU4D5In0BQ2t3mgOzMjIch5E=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=fCj7L0r+phebBoVac1Dfgkzh8sQHIcNR1r0LPHt5ls9gxRaHKPMkEx6FE5LuOjxKc z1pde1nzAeosMP9B2WDlnlqjZnmdLK7HkG6INIc8fl12/G7RYchNTzLox1DhdfvrOg Drpa0GYjsl8uwJdCIP+v7Id6v2EcqefjkP5Ch1/o=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvVYZ-1gxiQc2kPj-010gFr; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:17:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4+VoK8A-R7_fkH7mfVp0K6CJOh7=vp05mM47WRorWcWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:17:11 +0100
Cc: Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5CF9D2B5-F99C-4798-A0FD-0228AA9673CC@gmx.de>
References: <d91a6a71-5898-9571-2a02-0d9d83839615@bobbriscoe.net> <CAA93jw5MTdn9EQgpZ0xrjqEi7UKqH3H_741anoB+pa0dtD=fpA@mail.gmail.com> <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <CAA93jw7jvjbZkEgO8xc03uCayo+o-uENxxAkzQOaz_EZSLhocw@mail.gmail.com> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903151915320.3161@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.com> <CAHxHggfPCqf9biCDmHMqA38=4y6gY6pFtRVMjMrrzYfLyRBf-g@mail.gmail.com> <1552846034.909628287@apps.rackspace.com> <D877D6D5-9CF0-45C7-AE61-37422410DED4@cablelabs.com> <CAA93jw4+VoK8A-R7_fkH7mfVp0K6CJOh7=vp05mM47WRorWcWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Täht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:XOWlnsqe8bGqqmAEvcQGuX4NDDRRD8t+rFdwhGGc+L9xZtgmHj+ pw29o90F75SFqOq1yIdMXN+WY1uWvmYD4IqGeKsufI504ILnbSC1AAhEhq9ZsWZVIl0Q2rw yzQg7AQ5ZC2wQCDLDgHB4BoydKOFJTfDtVWkTXB81YkFQBmCTRA4SG9zdC9XXt0SH9gf/02 eRiHNwKicMUJOz7APlmng==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:TGsXCIsAfxQ=:fKiC6xn0/eYU/dEz3nGW2S AZXjytCEBX9eHw47qXZEk3+PM00eUN+LcvR4lRcINY4y0niJiD3AN7omTeQGRlzfPEV6Ed3GD KJ60UX0A3Paz+AVHRvThbVlV+woc9ASKFozebtoLIcYqRdLFNb+4flkPxuRj73gLCe3oBRky/ piwYMksRuhbyhZhkoWQ9vHL+lCTsOptLwo+FyveQZI8aq2Q2kE99w3nMq012LeOsEw7BYPjH0 ce296qhyw3iF9QJzIcwbNo4nG7Fl92zzouUfu1IycqAkK46viTWpw/k1UXOVsZEzCdDJaM8iu je5E2rEzndkQRFIAGRReBltreQkA6gzUOCcaCGtahZiPk45oW1LhwnOopw3tjUXnQrgwOqrZG /wKIKsAexJJvuTdvQ/g6Wi1dUDcKKQ+wAn5oG/REyBhP0BL9qD6htW1J4TMmooec1c0sfpE8i 8jTSXM/IxaCrnO9zs8QYel4z17Mdt1kpfy8D5264ivz0LwlOfQZEU8ik7LqKzBzGjrvDwt7LZ c1892YIVPesI6Mm2rIjA0Z9uldKFoZ0kgssTBDlTktpJ/Eu9hD2DZ+Wp55Mi+9Rnk7YcNoc+U /j5sPYHz8IXuGtd4i//Z4HiYlDyh7tb6yZzJWL3keEyjW6ZYRurlNeXsTfeFusQE/xFL0Ogxt 6UPhUjSveAMU6A3IoZrT/lKhbzf8hVQDci1bYLcDN5j+hIjqjtzksAAWMTyd8RUWlKwl83s2T /vMhZloyri8FsA5XmspzQ8vMSv14qbiZSPXocwIVk71nczRSOQIWiSv7fmUgbND+aHyz07xbY zjt9dok8QZXiVRhhiY9r1gVNyzKE5Qo0508TUt9IoqW0lPpcVcSL0DsmBIq6Ow1I7klOrSXyk VykFBqMVOkLejNbS+L7oqoN4Q98S5k0EtKycp+xg6tj9CAV4+dpCKF9W0doiKZtlZVnqSp7Mx DsrDi1yf7hg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/JOZ-s9vH27EVB8NGcNa64zU3sG0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104
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, 20 Mar 2019 10:17:24 -0000

Dear All,


> On Mar 20, 2019, at 00:59, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:44 AM Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> But, L4S has been demonstrated in real equipment and in simulation, and leverages an existing congestion
> 
> Not under circumstances I can control. That's Not Science.
[...]

It would be great if the L4S project maybe could help kick-start independent testing, by creating an sharing two VMs one with the appropriate client side patches and one with a L4S aware AQM (probably curvy RED to avoid the patent issue, assuming the patent does not cover curvyRED). So that it is easier to "kick" the tiers in a way that tests what the L4S project considers compliant clients/AQM. Personally I am interested to see how robust and reliable the  detection of non-L4S CE sources is and how well the L4S side of the AQM will tolerate CE-marked packets from non-L4S senders, or in other words how well the "isolation" works. And also how L4S endpoints will deal with SCE emitting AQMs on their path.
I admit that I have doubts that ECT(1), basically a single "constellation" of a 2-bit bitfield can serve as a replacement for a single independent bit in a single-bit bit-field, that seems required for real isolation of flows of different ECN-response types.

Best Regards
	Sebastian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email