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

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi
/Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>
> Sent: den 28 mars 2021 22:08
> To: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>; Pete Heist
> <[e-mail]>; Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>; C. M. Heard
> <[e-mail]>; De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> <[e-mail]>; tsvwg IETF list <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
> 
> Hi ingemar,
> 
> let's take your "let it age out" proposal at face value. How long do you
> estimate will it take for those problematic nodes to age out of the system
> after the IETF has signaled that rfc3168 has changed?
> And let's assume you come up with a number of X years, are you really willing
> to put the L4S experiment on hold until that time has passed?
[IJ] Things does not work that way. There are absolutely no incentives to adapt nodes on the internet that does feature A to work in concert with feature B, if feature B is put on hold until feature A adapts. 
This would call for a flag day and these have so far not worked well on the internet.

> 
> Unless the answer to that question is YES, let's just drop this proposal, okay?
> This is not a path to a productive discussion/outcome.
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 28, 2021, at 22:03, Ingemar Johansson S
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > See below [IJ]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: den 28 mars 2021 21:34
> >> To: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>; Pete Heist
> >> <[e-mail]>; Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>; C. M. Heard
> >> <[e-mail]>; De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> >> <[e-mail]>; tsvwg IETF list
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
> >>
> >>> On 28 Mar, 2021, at 10:01 pm, Ingemar Johansson S
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All I see is that this RFC3168 AQM is brought up repeatedly, when
> >>> prompted
> >> about the possibility that even RFC3168 AQMs can be updated…
> >>
> >> The point here is that even if *some* existing AQMs can be updated
> >> easily, there will be some which cannot or will not.  These are what
> >> you must pessimistically take into account when analysing the risk of
> >> deploying L4S.  Until you absorb that knowledge and start taking it
> >> into account, you're not going to make any headway.
> >
> > [IJ] And these that "can or will not.." will then continue to run across the
> internet 10 years from now ?, 20 years ?.. Network gear is constantly being
> replaced with the reason being that they either become too old to be
> economically feasible to maintain or that they just break down. Home
> gateways breakdown or are just been replaced because they don't meet
> new demands. You don't normally keep a PC for more than ~5 years for a
> bunch of reasons. Why would you keep networking gear for decades ?
> >
> >>
> >> - Jonathan Morton