Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] ECN CE that was ECT(0) incorrectly classified as L4S

Yuchung Cheng <> Tue, 09 July 2019 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C761200C3 for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.205
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.205 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WnGkB2QrNarz for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::341]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE5A7120059 for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f17so409850wme.2 for <>; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RFGWIyJ8UomFdQHf8tvoMCGq2s8XebABzhj93IftLec=; b=oSIPvGeR+jIQOcc+MP/gZEPy/IxJhZ+c3VyVaFmD5QvwE12BEcR7NfB3SEYR/JYeKC HPXlwyq41dyQoPReVZs7+mBa1zpVbbImbzDAcRJGAmUmNys068D4iEaNbKknLG5R5Eoe JXJbbFF/PaZCwTIxqdN47cN0t57oWFe2RvHat6EYXSn/49dLHYtNuaL4otDlECWe8l1s ok5uxyNC97FzQAs0UqA0Fm3VrhYJ8NYiyNo2F5Movo3VyYcCgq6nWcp3GI9oBhaekVgE JbDE/nf1gTzdXGNiZDfyybnMz9DvLCnOJMPtnm7JV+FpDTuiPMrYqJ46wolDB+6L4C81 q83Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RFGWIyJ8UomFdQHf8tvoMCGq2s8XebABzhj93IftLec=; b=qf5XY2+b2H0TrnEnLGoUDnwX+tWacotkQTHklzUYcHxnhUsEbN9Cviq5O9BAHBBOok h/T/xFq6I5VK8Pxb5z/d8BPKXP67ywaaRcJT0bHD/atqdp1y7eJP/k4DEdjHuRfOTLaY KBGlKpOkXzgZvMjfRdm66WLuTk555AmtZCCfPCco8cvxHIBqht4GInSiVoF0nJMuLfD4 e016sEt2ibQIQPHk7NDwJ9Uw010q5NkRPqN/uV0D5NEf+zSWWgTZWFrQuXnfquOCBMHs ErfSV3M8DEsjb0PQLFrTXcgLqs/bwAa8XOFMTo2VB8GNXr8kDCTNfj6tGn99wKGGiNR9 35HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWUzJ4uGhoela5tTsBYUMQcqjUob5blO89JhF+EbO0hoAYiNvP3 TXXs5JUIw99rx25gfszVkIGNxHQZ0oaq4v3/kO/OZw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAwY5qqyM/Rm+/hPBY+3DaOVS6fwNKmfRjAE31RbwuxWAjMxzuFiEy223ru7PZRpb3Pl4HJWTFMyzrjBt3Zyw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c1c1:: with SMTP id r184mr1663655wmf.9.1562713728808; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Yuchung Cheng <>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:08:04 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Jonathan Morton <>
Cc: Bob Briscoe <>, tcpm IETF list <>, "" <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] ECN CE that was ECT(0) incorrectly classified as 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, 09 Jul 2019 23:08:52 -0000

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:41 AM Jonathan Morton <> wrote:
> > On 13 Jun, 2019, at 7:48 pm, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
> >
> >       1.  It is quite unusual to experience queuing at more than one
> >           bottleneck on the same path (the available capacities have to
> >           be identical).
> Following up on David Black's comments, I'd just like to note that the above is not the true criterion for multiple sequential queuing.
> Many existing TCP senders are unpaced (aside from ack-clocking), including FreeBSD, resulting in potentially large line-rate bursts at the origin - especially during slow-start.  Even in congestion avoidance, each ack will trigger a closely spaced packet pair (or sometimes a triplet).  It is then easy to imagine, or to build a testbed containing, an arbitrarily long sequence of consecutively narrower links; upon entering each, the burst of packets will briefly collect in a queue and then be paced out at the new rate.
> TCP pacing does largely eliminate these bursts when implemented correctly.  However, Linux' pacing and IW is specifically (and apparently deliberately) set up to issue a 10-packet line-rate burst on startup.  This effect has shown up in SCE tests to the point where we had to patch this behaviour out of the sending kernel to prevent an instant exit from slow-start.
We (Google TCP folks) are internally experimenting (always) pacing IW.
May hurt very long RTT and short transfers (<=IW), but could be an
overall win.

>  - Jonathan Morton