IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 24 July 2024 18:50 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 59C0EC14F6F7; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmx.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjExXivKO-Ub; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15553C14F706; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1721847015; x=1722451815; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=snBtuK1TClB6DVbO73l7W7EiWMEDKcN3zD26Z8LDa+s=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=r3YShy22ozU0R87t/hCZjNBHrfpcPzkb7ELQa7HagJlLzdH4aou3UVQKvCdRfT88 Rk3cxwdGPhT7gQxlvYfv0adH2IT8xagAfa4lzhyKqIWbaYN5H3P5L7BWno/m0+Ji+ toVMT2Sy2aJFpUb7roUB/uZr/K1MsPk3rSPCVOULeHgurPu2JHDGwXrQvKTtEumkc symIvWLBlhE6SgUSUl8J6J/OVTDrQCsqmvfvXs2gnBMPSeGO9/sgbrDkq8l/L/uNm YSbySkHDiQgCOpjJHiTPpnRq5rK6sGUNEnanv1dwT+11TopT6jzCbauK2YeWShEAx KYSsF2BKeiG2H0gXjw==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.122.177]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MLi8m-1soDup01Pk-00VZuE; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:50:15 +0200
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:50:12 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: "Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)" <michael.overcash@cox.com>, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <reply+AB2VULW2XRH6MPK23ABRZQOEVLRFREVBNHHI5USV5Y@reply.github.com>, gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <NQBdraft@noreply.github.com>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <LV2PR01MB7622223E48C2DFB2E0527DFC9FAA2@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/48@github.com> <gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/48/2244060936@github.com> <MN2PR19MB404591B9BAA1AEED7BBB900983A92@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <LV2PR01MB7622B7EA53C95951987C9B0B9FA92@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com> <26D2AD7F-108B-4655-87F6-EF5E127B3BB8@gmx.de> <LV2PR01MB7622DEBFDC0223096F6768CC9FAA2@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com> <AC02F73F-3E71-4FDA-9686-6006192FF0BA@gmx.de> <A9B53BDB-53F3-43F2-ACA5-5D646E394721@comcast.com> <LV2PR01MB7622223E48C2DFB2E0527DFC9FAA2@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <12E155C6-157D-4331-8409-3E29A3995B76@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:qJSqpi4RjlbQwddXQjxV1KFNMM42ArFl0+BWAd5VzX3+KB5f87n u9Yeprz2Zl4BuCBy9taPuSfvHrXizqf0gg1hm6HCfbIuk1J2wJj5oQYatcjlbpc5opvKkyN BBHakHMpZFxMV0PifpovWwjVjZP9QxFvYXDivUxC6xkVLlUhTDPc7BFdgZLpl+s7Ruqa4nY bcWXOXmMpLSGXtnDtDa8A==
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:FnIGcUzidjE=;FCS4IxN5SorBcUDLxbGB4umdzp7 Jq7OFTpgB1eA/d51cV6YqHx2lfUy14r9iF5lSu/MASjx+qXeND05upFu0kGbZCok2Pn+8aLRe fDWaXVtmztccJwfY9ymLEOcKgmFjP/SZh50KZY0aM9JDA7pd7EF03ZUcZV6WknUMLRaHdzeIj N6nCBpBtRSULPhCX/RTdmjymkZRNxY/LtFp4xWdJjcQSsCAM8XF4ZyInfZiAlX/lu5BmlzEie /XIpCnLxnSYD77zg7B9PxKXIzTTxqAJxYoaw0z3Ab+TeLR4Csiji4W/qT7NXkGjGevvJ0swyD QCRdRY6oFhvzRKdX0V8IpgpTBWwl/ZAf3YbJ6acIG/SQ7mk+BXVEJjkeVBWwBp3cOb8QJVRK9 +qLLnfFEPLSL5OJGCRJi1B4MJxojOv8ekj4xhUYXfDgVfhztJIYDEuEUGfP/ypZL2vcPtyejW /3AyGkS7LVVjLQc69/iGUoOdAFD+GmgSzS45wt6s3oBpD+pS/40xCmIiY89zls9auUdBkFvaN KhxTjpFGmWAOtirdXvSlWzn1SIO/NT8pLcjvu8QXSQNZyPZ0k0o8SfIgse4Yzwm8sA+k4dBxW llVW8VFyF6UNO18W0T/Z2pFy4AKxpLEMYRqzJFHNp250mKE8a6FZsGpO7TW7iG8D9BTePhYAw EcZbsrfYaZyOAixbS+oZVtBT+Wo4HR1gpTHWJFJZifGy9BxVfpgB6iawziIiQYOTGblM+Y3mF XGuc3S3JHReiUC/tgWdrblPvGBKt1dMfhLQCjViDkvnd1JzVxb0e30Y/hBU5BJ25qiZHt0ier u0GptOuMM96wbYboUZ4x1guw==
Message-ID-Hash: HX3VG36ATPTTQ3WWBKE2OFD4JLA5O2MI
X-Message-ID-Hash: HX3VG36ATPTTQ3WWBKE2OFD4JLA5O2MI
X-MailFrom: moeller0@gmx.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/VEbebpwkEPJLrJNZunf3elyRnDo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Michael,

On 24 July 2024 17:36:02 CEST, "Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)" <michael.overcash@cox.com> wrote:
>In addition, for the access device the overall rate limiting is independent of the queue ... it is an overall aggregate limit. (And the 80% sounds backwards ... at least for Cox our initial weighting will favor Classic flows because they are the flows generally used for bulk transfer.)

[SM] So are you at liberty which priority share you are going to assign to the 2 classes in your CMTSs? I assume you will use the low latency docsis framework/tools to di that, so will you only use NQB or also L4S and if both, it would be quite interesting to learn what effect a smaller priority share will have for l4s traffic?

>
>--
>Michael Overcash
>Principal Architect, CPE Premises Engineering
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Livingood, Jason <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:15 AM
>To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta) <michael.overcash@cox.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org; Black, David <David.Black@dell.com>; gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <reply+AB2VULW2XRH6MPK23ABRZQOEVLRFREVBNHHI5USV5Y@reply.github.com>; gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <NQBdraft@noreply.github.com>
>Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)
>
>>>Abuse needs an incentive. Can anyone think of a way to abuse L4S that provides a benefit to the abuser? (Other than the intended benefit of improved latency of course.)/
>
>> [SM] For a single flow getting access to (by default) 80% of link capacity as reward for ignoring CE marks is IMHO a pretty clear benefit...
>
>[JL] Wouldn't this application behaviour be readily identifiable? Also, if the app in question is queue building, ISTM that marking for NQB with a shallow buffer would not improve your app QoE. 
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status