Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 31 March 2021 13:10 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 548613A27ED for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 txnV6sD2b5VD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (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 BA5B63A27EC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id by2so9841028qvb.11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:12 -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=U4r5IkoPjephYPCeqqmG4iLerMN+A667+/JhIv7VMK0=; b=Py5gZGEOMqSs+6LozGstxrpyizKNLnFvSbgrxLuCOlm6sk4ga5x4EZFYZUbr2NBNxa /Pq684PHaRbd0/KOxEnTx49VVf1lQiEWy0bbsWNuddz41bY+b4BXmLJvjORuf62DF2bY w0YMITKaZKiQII9fPwBm9DlTPf34pY+qPvB+bJUFeTvC7myDqc6YAuuFSNCqyxkAkkLG RLV3VTUL1rg6iI1WBbQZmG4Oo0F3F2/BTqcFd+Z1N9OFRVENy5BeBiW7Af710q5uofim oTZHRnBiBVhTnEw3TdlEBeNxNtUOq/jgCemKzcYVqDA3i1OWfXyD+Vv+N/OHPmRf4lPw Ua3Q==
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=U4r5IkoPjephYPCeqqmG4iLerMN+A667+/JhIv7VMK0=; b=kdXrpm/rLmEOwjhRCpGTcjnRQbaIAPhKY1dlLCzOWBG/yKpRp18SIQ1eKB6G0nFlqW tj+JwZWcxdg9vhjcISsL9samHihuxsy3rrBYAD/WA9gl2h8HGmr65FqUkAd+9OyhZL6J g6Yx+yjlxgQguql6IRjJq8CXxuRPL/P6hWqE7DiNCXUuQQzr39F/1KAc/2JJafnhrdYP edsytZdrYVzLpFOzx7XRsTvhTgzjDRYMMVyEnMJdHuXNy3yeELq1tBBZeoK5wFTYRJou JxInMbS5dGrEJ4J+uGDxez+U620UpGRsNUbz3GlCYdnaoEUQLCuRT5Ta7teIx6WfdhoF sYZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IgZ+1Todp3RUKE0C736nihQEkOQ9RJfGkXzXfD1GTDUqDnWYr qvYp1genALcDppXctN2c0oJ6lSpEXtydloLS
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJsI6a9Yg9QrZZcou9x8kzKcf6KD3BCJTvw8HCT6IhSz8OqAm36s/K1wlbXemIdH/0e9r/7A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:176e:: with SMTP id et14mr2867730qvb.35.1617196209859; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:09 -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 19sm285528qtt.32.2021.03.31.06.10.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR19MB404527384A1B1DD9CFC2A3D983659@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6f0ac4bf-bd1a-65cd-1d40-a97d4aa71aab@bobbriscoe.net> <7B4426F9-E1C5-4F88-A264-0D54C809D523@gmail.com> <d28a8ac1-83a3-d7b5-3106-80abdca8b5a7@bobbriscoe.net> <C05137C5-B972-4E8F-8B1A-3254A4BB9865@gmail.com> <fe9b72cc-62fa-1587-64b4-4ed8b0b32d5a@bobbriscoe.net> <712A4EA0-27AE-4037-9ED2-687A5A69689B@gmail.com> <55df6d38-9b6e-aa31-7731-35765675d8de@bobbriscoe.net> <97DD093D-3FF4-45BF-9881-160763BF13FF@gmail.com> <b136740c-b413-ab20-615e-5476d207feb2@mti-systems.com> <8f056a372d9972c8f13e2c1f6732c91ab6d69e9b.camel@petri-meat.com>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <3329ce08-8272-1c6f-7065-17b82e6b2857@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:10:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8f056a372d9972c8f13e2c1f6732c91ab6d69e9b.camel@petri-meat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/P1rh7uJg4IWkDCCNRrCcOE9LAfQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
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 13:10:14 -0000

On 3/30/2021 11:19 PM, Steven Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 19:12 -0400, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>> On 3/30/2021 6:41 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>> Okay, so what mechanism do you propose to contain the L4S
>>> experiment to the participating networks?
>> I think the notion of a strong containment guarantee to
>> participating
>> networks that you mention is a bit extreme in contrast to just
>> reducing
>> the likelihood or severity of issues. There has been a lot of
>> congestion
>> control experimentation on Internet paths that strong containment
>> has
>> not been expected of.
> How many of those experimental congestion control protocols set a RFC
> 3168-defined ECT marking on their packets and then failed to respond to
> a RFC 3168-defined CE congestion signal by triggering multiplicative
> decrease?

The issue is well understood.  The doc talks about detection and 
fallback, and has placeholders for more content in this area.


>> I think the sense of the working group has been to take an approach
>> of
>> collecting and recommending reasonable measures to identify and
>> avoid
>> issues when experimenting with L4S.  This is mainly in Section 4 of
>> the
>> ops draft right now.  I have not understood the general working
>> group
>> direction to be asking for strong containment guarantees though, and
>> I
>> don't think that needs to be a goal.
> The recommended measures in Sec. 5 (not 4) of l4sops-02 are directed at
> the operators deploying RFC 3168 and *not participating in the L4S
> experiment* and consist of either disabling RFC-3168 ECN or of
> instantiating configurations that depend on the capability to classify
> on ECT(1) markings specifically, a configuration feature that doesn't
> appear to be universally available in deployed software. Opinions
> differ on whether these measures are "reasonable" or are directed at
> the appropriate parties.

Section 4 has a number of precautions, as stated, for experimenting with 
L4S.