Re: [tsvwg] draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels/
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 25 April 2023 20:40 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 E8E5FC15257C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 cmXGbIo67fwl for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84CB3C14CF1B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-773c30de3a4so1891255241.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682455256; x=1685047256; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cOuz3Zqx5BsvO5YQbo1wjdlHTOVUh6Pb5L6CRDmbtPg=; b=DUZYD++rAwXAlLHrCEjn1EvrzNVc94BhRFCbpgWviLRBqGFJ5SBvhH2grihelL3zpM HR50SSgB6Dm+hqdEQz6meUF1OL2NmSFBr6BaJqqxTT4mH3Ko2mrMRxMJE992u9hn1InI nmCqJLeWQ6wyY/yR1grMf3fdtE770dz2nivKELwjBg/BHI2ZVqyiHRgwlJHfmIY2VUP1 YqjZ0ciLctNl6uj0/ZyIwY98onJX/r20TsBHBwqj7H5ee/shwaMj7S0ov9JksvQbVgg/ 4gZ5q1gpU0OsmSCRz7lgHkS887p+yiNthByXwii9VbJHNa39Cz9ML4emUbt0/u+w3Vmo c3ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682455256; x=1685047256; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=cOuz3Zqx5BsvO5YQbo1wjdlHTOVUh6Pb5L6CRDmbtPg=; b=cwXKLQobKkMbkHwkX2DDFrdUg9dDjUO421e1SevGxpe1tY9EI8gQsOtY6rba1TVMPg tdz819J7K6KigMqOywn9kEoE6797ZCwLuspUzpbbW68BETi7IXE5P8Hy9PeW0kQYYlNQ um/Lt5DtJczJ2f8F2uPYbjvjEzKxCM9A17KvJRzbKRXUm6ySrb+cJtwnDzdp/z7Bmvqd EJ1lEu92MnjKbfgxNn5TeKT/xVqudnaUhm/mLcM6FCRSyVT7fJONZZfqsOLfEFvprXpv 4Km4O9nUpES9kzpiMkHj7LeHPIH6rAlN3udnYq5U0RMLYCNU9Dn5GdiubYZT1faEneYq uNQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ezcG/qvdL2a2sUfiRZK9XAufeM5dBTM0iHZ6LMWrPRr59ZqgUj cuz3Lt+G2RhfUq7X9BTFRkp8W1Gn+dWqSzylnUc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZTXvZEPCcZGuQnmVRNy7Zm0Yrog8dDESsANwQO8d7qVMy8CW90h8XiibOq8qBe+UCKJSq9VK6MkEGbSQ6QTUk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:1d9:b0:425:e492:de9e with SMTP id s25-20020a05610201d900b00425e492de9emr8102935vsq.16.1682455256443; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b5892afc-4155-9eaf-1fd7-41e5405d064c@gmx.at>
In-Reply-To: <b5892afc-4155-9eaf-1fd7-41e5405d064c@gmx.at>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:40:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRubdcUAChMt4UtH1sPH3SuJ9jOemVE0uou4+BFfzLhFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: rscheff@freebsd.org
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9304405fa2f23b9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/dJL0XobHpGCOHi0LkjxtUF9ORuU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels/
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 20:40:58 -0000
Hi Richard, Thanks for reading. I'm returning to this draft after a Loooong delay, including accidentally deleting my only copy of the markdown... On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:39 AM Scheffenegger, Richard <rs.ietf@gmx.at> wrote: > But SHOULD aggregate common packets together even if this means > introducing slight reordering (e.g. 3 packets scope) would be a sensible > guidance in the ingress router? > > I don't think this introduces reordering in most cases. A single flow should not contain Not-ECT, ECT(0), and ECT(1), so grouping codepoints together generally shouldn't cause packets in that flow to be OOO. (exceptions: multiple aggregating tunnels, probe conditions where an ECN connection has a few ECT packets only, etc.) As currently written, CE can be aggregated with packets of any other marking.
- [tsvwg] draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels/ Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunn… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunn… Martin Duke