Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] Comments on L4S drafts

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 F26B5120A44 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kn_Hoz6oxkTk for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6241206E3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id w17so32422407qto.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nejsS9iXNi6Pai+Rg2blswNX+Q8aDQIEXAiYvgc2bZ4=; b=TMSckJ45ZQGKiuEvJSJ4etAKYfowGDY2O3VlMfqkOhUgM5A0jFep575D96oJtiuN5K AfT83OlAgVFOJHCIeqiA+U5CY5eqqNzNdpkqAcK3EpS4BJ3wxm3fcWVriePZQQ/1nlky res3AeqXsYRlafuVB1Tf/7nkFWuiVqzETk52Y9om+Ks4DK9Y+WxH7fxWhXtz6gtUWTAk ZfW8uWBV1bL3pcYM4ShkBlTftlUCpKeUSx2PcaWLJnmCD2kLvKlktrinfKg7OzjN+jCp eeQ+fwuYOzSfYrQ0SRQrUoDxsnSGTmNfIzucckejEs7XwepA1R0bDeLiccMg2NjI75mL +LaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nejsS9iXNi6Pai+Rg2blswNX+Q8aDQIEXAiYvgc2bZ4=; b=aDn1tz5htn10Yw8RnN4sT+6x7o2XlRvIe0ZVQr8L8Bq3EFhd17gyUwM7Jk4APHph3R 9YwxZjgxP/YZpElyyhqQYkBAo1Fp3c8CAOka/hJ/j3n5rs4os8HbuMLFMn848l0VfBtU Y7XWbgb6BntbHNA9ML/BgWgdzIhsiI8HKKIiQR4JpIwXTqFB/fLK+UN9rgDa4aaHbIHv 14U2aenB2zsaBBwEy6FjxJ6IKi3kXPJ61YhcMpqn99UWUGDwyBkQM2/mKzKULQV/kAXE R0ebnWU0oBpNoJWnyiTBDoDgXR4vdIDA93jCYLWvPjJ7ft8K1KCGt04zKwidfT2fuHOV ctWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWD8RV0abt1IyztcyiWjC+4dmxX6gC1KErVb7F5jLhADhltUdOb pxqQJYmX83Qe+3Kib+O7PUE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxvqzkZ863yIy7uAipDL6ZWs2NObkmVABAbTqqPl/2dYyEpivWCqPQr/+aa3SV2KXgwN+eAEA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:124c:: with SMTP id g12mr36741787qtj.57.1563569079868; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (173-246-8-242.qc.cable.ebox.net. [173.246.8.242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v75sm15970340qka.38.2019.07.19.13.44.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363062879C@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:44:37 -0400
Cc: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>, "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com>
References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <4aff6353-eb0d-b0b8-942d-9c92753f074e@bobbriscoe.net> <D13294C4-105C-4F58-A762-6911A21A18C6@akamai.com> <CAH8sseSQaCbknok--hf=DgwzCs3OnnkKjPy5bdLgnzjq7-+c_w@mail.gmail.com> <ce4b1e2d-3bc8-265c-6bcd-5a26b4dd89e9@bobbriscoe.net> <1238A446-6E05-4A55-8B3B-878C8F39FC75@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB3459B1173917DAFBCEB25511B9FA0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <17B33B39-D25A-432C-9037-3A4835CCC0E1@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB345956F52D92759F24FFAA13B9F50@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <52F85CFC-B7CF-4C7A-88B8-AE0879B3CCFE@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB3459B471C4D7ADAE4CF713F3B9F60@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D231681B-1E57-44E1-992A-E8CC423926B6@akamai.com> <AM4PR07MB34592A10E2625C2C32B9893EB9F00@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <A6F05DD3-D276-4893-9B15-F48E3018A129@gmx.de> <AM4PR07MB3459487C8A79B1152E132CE1B9CB0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <a85d38ba-98ac-e43e-7610-658f4d03e0f4@mti-systems.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363062879C@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ePobG16d-jPW5qkWfDNswiqG8j4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] Comments on L4S drafts
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:44:42 -0000

> On 19 Jul, 2019, at 4:06 pm, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> To be clear on what I have in mind:
> 	o Unacceptable: All traffic marked with ECT(1) goes into the L4S queue, independent of what DSCP it is marked with.
> 	o Acceptable:  There's an operator-configurable list of DSCPs that support an L4S service - traffic marked with ECT(1) goes into the L4S queue if and only if that traffic is also marked with a DSCP that is on the operator's DSCPs-for-L4S list.

I take it, in the latter case, that this increases the cases in which L4S endpoints would need to detect that they are not receiving L4S signals, but RFC-3168 signals.  The current lack of such a mechanism therefore remains concerning.  For comparison, SCE inherently retains such a mechanism by putting the RFC-3168 and high-fidelity signals on different ECN codepoints.

So I'm pleased to hear that the L4S team will be at the hackathon with a demo setup.  Hopefully we will be able to obtain comparative test results, using the same test scripts as we use on SCE, and also insert an RFC-3168 single queue AQM into their network to demonstrate what actually happens in that case.  I think that the results will be illuminating for all concerned.

 - Jonathan Morton