Re: [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S

Jonathan Morton <> Tue, 10 March 2020 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19223A0F49 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e_Kw_Br1yvuR for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 692D03A0F45 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q19so13299577ljp.9 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBI79D7R8sFNSCMBvXd7m+CoAfpkM8EM9Y1s4Fbu3UQ=; b=umHkv6Lsva/KhhsoSjE1I8zkOQyN5O8fHsjz+LNGOco+nyik4VNah6D2EOX09ioIP0 +DmC35O3gfSY+1bfAYlL6VpWavJKBQKVbt81Z0dd3ny8Dp+T6FmBEHrrZZNg7AGix2V6 ffG86HBVCI4nUao4tzp9rj24grnqfzVJqrqRwwiUve0hKifhDWHHoWmFeMNagcHDDf2e g1D94QTmsvbBdxYhp7fOVyn/1gVdHPWwYLv2GFpdoGrS6tTIdvLOgBCEk8+C/QRsUjSu 7yJT7B74VHWIgBhubLPbz7Vdb65W8/1LgKQoP+Qlq3G0n6y/Sr0+FjHHRvtkkjLe3ngY eaCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBI79D7R8sFNSCMBvXd7m+CoAfpkM8EM9Y1s4Fbu3UQ=; b=mxn0NKyJ/yCLU5UJT2Mgm/lH0PjimM6dyhfju5kbitM5odl+QjTL9gsYPpUwtSTV1y oYQELIL7ewP40Ha/JTMbpuFbNSiD4hC0E9rKxByBc6yz13/NxrGTO2VLTz8fo3wtQjev v993fBxcFgzKMJFpmEgHWndmzM0TajH60KekuOFrFAAoUIYWbnit7gBbwuRQaalxLr2l adyOP4o6iZFsqV8n8miDTEqeg0dx6HdfX2s6xzQlLaVxelzSxckqCpKP1yjHgNaAhxjV v6ReNcD0In+cITIhTSD6J9s26eyEk59oqrf/EQ6AyC7fYO7zjUIk349bDDfaBlksk9gl wkLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3X4trG+rW+ox++1kLH5DuyFo581mwL/8Ppy8F0xQs4uoZWNXRl mlaxyycVQ7ZxK6ztKkR+BDXKHRP4
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsCJb0vNT842Zh35gCwvMpNe1Bvfa22ir+vxO9jQjdukt8CmCIQAUblGkG6A0U6zbZYukHnQQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1065:: with SMTP id y5mr10723435ljm.121.1583833405371; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id e9sm13529196ljp.24.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:43:23 +0200
Cc: "" <>, Ingemar Johansson S <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:43:30 -0000

> On 10 Mar, 2020, at 10:02 am, Ingemar Johansson S <> wrote:
> I recently updated the readme on the SCReAM github with a comparison with SCReAM in three different settings
> 	• No ECN
> 	• CoDel ECN
> 	• L4S
> Even though it is more than a magnitude difference in queue delay between CoDel-ECN and L4S, it is fair to say that these simple simulations should of course be seen as just a snapshot. 
> We hope to present some more simulations with 5G access, and not just simple bottlenecks with one flow, after the summer. 

Looking at the throughput numbers, I also notice the L4S case has less than half the throughput of the Codel ECN case.  That seems like a significant tradeoff for the lower delay numbers.  In fact, even though the throughput *before* the capacity reduction is less than the capacity *after* it, the throughput is still halved when the capacity reduces.

This seems like something you might still want to look into.

 - Jonathan Morton