Re: [tsvwg] Deprecating RFC 3168 for future ECN experimentation

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Wed, 31 March 2021 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
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 984893A261E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iLxzPZwjYxv7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703873A261D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 12VC5uHV077007; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:05:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 12VC5tjq077006; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:05:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202103311205.12VC5tjq077006@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <28cbb29662b344a8a67ff7a87e74b1cf@huawei.com>
To: daihuichen <daihuichen@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 05:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
CC: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/NIL1L91RnnwUb5F9HfkEqC0BdAw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Deprecating RFC 3168 for future ECN experimentation
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, 31 Mar 2021 12:06:15 -0000

Huichen,

What type of queues are used for the low-latency ROCE traffic?

> Jonathan,
> 
> Only the queue for low-latency traffic, e.g., roce packets, is ECN enabled.
> The rest queues are usually FIFOs with tail-drop policy. 
> 
> /Huichen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 2021?3?31? 11:19 AM
> To: daihuichen <daihuichen@huawei.com>
> Cc: Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Deprecating RFC 3168 for future ECN experimentation
> 
> > On 31 Mar, 2021, at 6:15 am, daihuichen <daihuichen@huawei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Today, ECN has been widely deployed in data center networks?
> 
> May I ask, purely out of idle curiosity, whether those deployments are primarily of the single-queue variety, or of the flow-isolating type?
> 
>  - Jonathan Morton
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org