Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Mon, 16 September 2019 07:33 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 7B90C120817 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 fmOxlVJkqkcC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 29BB612081A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1568619183; bh=0MNcBscvZQwR/6n1m0NSpvEhmbGezu6YWqdHJpR+yW0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=LtMVwKJscFY6klhKJxiW9n/sEdO4+U6VgUvVwMzbAJAosNKWY49mmBwoAaGWcog0x kNk6b0UVajveY+bHB39xveO9SfNhaAn6oeQ5Nao1j4CZDVx+FuTW7y8GJE3l52XB9e plQY+tv7rytl8ASVivMNFkW60C4xtTnUAt8KSv9M=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.11.12.32] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MLQxX-1hrPSf0Red-00IWSW; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:27:58 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <85653C73-449A-4FB0-B15A-F3617B398D29@heistp.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:27:55 +0200
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06F55720-52AF-4AD8-9DE1-2ACF8D694239@gmx.de>
References: <8321f975-dfe7-694c-b5cc-09fa371b9b61@mti-systems.com> <B58A5572-510E-42C7-8181-42A0BE298393@gmail.com> <D2E12331-F504-4D5F-B8E7-A1A5E98DDF7E@cablelabs.com> <2275E6A5-C8F8-477F-A24A-3E6168917DDF@gmail.com> <55F724CD-6E74-40D9-8416-D1918C2008DD@cablelabs.com> <BBE7C7A9-0222-4D84-BF27-8D5CAE2F995E@gmail.com> <6f189711-ffa0-90f4-fd16-3464ba4df3ce@mti-systems.com> <4A706B11-3239-4DAC-BE85-0B4BFF2D8FF8@heistp.net> <85653C73-449A-4FB0-B15A-F3617B398D29@heistp.net>
To: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:0KkvImb8iDlf0WiT1I3zYKcDkzDtogTf9VXKJ89V/4PlHyLv6gI Li9oeDr6yxFe1EWyMgZ/fTy1+aCWnk4elHcDqcm1Q2ujCjW6LpaCNEmDPZoUovYlw2HySDW j8hxIMdwQpZ9omqWAuqlGFvLG5yje46I2DDIG61qlL3xf86Uem5TixeUwIHvA/xte7+ajLt jb3NqjvxM7kKOGZBHm7EA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Y8+sDegGNpY=:fkUXsjHdzyHZpBhn7W211Z f5fX9YqZ/VxY1N9TL7f//bcgsyqfrBXCRCdrURplpdUvU5rKrlJSS1rHIwYm+x9fSLsgc24Hw ZYOaG5h4/KT92M+1x80ZP+BMIaaEpL8Tj3cTwlaLzrsidYefTfkkZtNkiarZtJbNLFI+UZzYO dkn/B8PW5lKchmxLV3A0JuB+zuEyOViobxKEA+qow+fZvXC8QmyuzujjOC4VNCJHd9/FiEYBb BViQ7Trc4VjV4EFZLU1G50/sca8oe9O59BpWOUsyh5SbV22vnQ/7oppeCyfK8bMZVeep6cS2z Vv7C6HlnjntWIUacDbmseU+ReqjSUlODVRhK+ls+mHTa1FU1pa4Wt9mbFKLJTa9rNnjDDIcug 2+wNTHiMeflQf1HpcW0cdhmg49HVwVipzlerHB6fASsTSwLCMPYG+HXOOE7i/aFPHlewGA5VP XyNJysVO6yMPRgKrG/4vaQa18YyL5klpYlpVgrKrsFqshd24SqHJPRFbX8hudjQbLj/ZK5ekv uEUuzYRCGDFmGGVBpPX1NxhUh+qhcurTeaMCbAGsH+CasEivMjxBGj3myTg/1K/kLi50FvkDA MS4EWE3PATV8RmZqKG4xaqkBnOUu8c4pyC9bwAZ+xfKcomU6vEZgq9bp7xe6zywF9CZN0xHhi e3G9fzeIUXeYVC+91N9K5KmEPWTYSAVagX8ttHxcZEWBberyiJw+qTrsEkayUsMndMdHxO/yl aE27ZJk6fuBBvRMevRmdHSVgVReddl95nR/5n7gTw0oMsm6tZxVZSLCz6ZYIA+0T8AWScm19n 055ck/soom3wwZEDX7dQn6oDSEO4MmBCvp9MjC+z8Pg0eXsa7FJfVJVqN3psYcmsrO9PdruvO QgYGo8/5VmQUvC/kTTD/MW8R6qRTIKbuRS0CA0LWeHDiOlIz7mpVHXEZePqBXXIEy616ei5Z4 mDb6pnCPjx/JUPhT/dywAOJ2N/YgTi2SZYLG1AZYqtQi0LYEnJXSGr3bkyzfei8+1sriFlco0 Ago54kXyKy0/uJOWHqwiL4CNSb9a6v+nPiJRjPeMpQWbUgG5Mkzfr5O2jz/FXFCVMFC+MqrZd 6HYWHhvTBn+e55BX/rDvRH6ARy7S4fZcpFnZ3Xw1gpmwhXdfipHY58cDkumDMGG0BnWDePeTc e+hvyxQ+czCAPT1nsrj9BfZG2nDXfekPCfXfRliuDCU22kMfxIED/4kUCDr73Oby6Gn7ZSHOH skaSrOrr4uYzdjBm51yPJogqw5iV9ir61J898UyOAI8c6HBeVD5svUyTEveA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/e_rJ4g-Yoz9wyiQ9B2-vfuN3c_A>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:33:24 -0000

Hi Pete,

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 07:58, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2019, at 9:01 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is anyone planning to perform this testing in a rough timeframe they might want to share?
>> 
>> Hi Wesley, I’ll share results from relevant testing in the next day or two...
> 
> Just adding to this thread that the interaction with CoDel is shown in a few different ways in the SCE-L4S “bakeoff” tests in scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6:
> 
> https://github.com/heistp/sce-l4s-bakeoff/


Excellent, thanks.

So it looks like my fear that L4S-flows would completely crowd out standard compliant flows in the post bottleneck FQ-AQM scenario was unfounded! The intra-L4S latency increases in that situation, however, look terrible, but since they seem restricted to all L4S flows I can certainly live with that. I wonder whether the L4S crowd will consider that acceptable or whether they will work on detecting standard compliant ECN-AQMs and falling back to standard compliantt behavior in that case now? This was/is in the potential todo list for tcp prague anyway, if I understand correctly.

Best Regards
	Sebastian