Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-02.txt

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Pete,

Thanks for the updated draft a fortnight ago, with the extra columns I 
asked for.

I've been excluding the rows with obvious pathologies.

Of the 90 IPs in your TCP results, 74 have at least one obvious 
pathology, leaving only 16 clean.
And actually, there was a pathology suggested in your slides today that 
isn't in the above,
     If I check for that too, 83 IPs have at least one pathology, 
leaving only 7 clean.

Any idea what is going on?



==Details==

In the TCP results, unlike with QUIC, the reverse feedback is visible. 
So I can check for more pathologies.

I checked for this obvious pathology, that wasn't directly mentioned in 
the slides today:
* Congestion experienced (CE) in one direction but no echo congestion 
experienced (ECE) feedback in the other.
* Or conversely, echo congestion experienced (ECE) feedback in one 
direction but no congestion experienced (CE) in the other.

Of the 90 IPs in the TCP results, 40 from the WAN have this pathology 
and 38 from the LAN
(taking the direction as that of the data)
Only 16 IPs, don't have this pathology in either direction.

I would have thought you guys would have picked up these when checking 
for the ECE/CE >= 2
     'cos otherwise you would have got loads of divide by zero errors 
(and/or zeros).

If I include the pathology you mention where ECE/CE < 2
In all, of the 90 IPs in the TCP results, after I exclude any IP with a 
pathology, I only have 7 IPs left.



Bob

PS. I agree it's v strange for an ISP to share capacity between its 
members by how many flows they are using.

On 08/03/2021 22:19, Pete Heist wrote:
> I'm following up in this thread to one question that's come up- why is
> an ISP deploying fq_codel in its backhaul?
>
> In short, this ISP encourages research and experiments by its members,
> and this was a way to both see how much congestion exists, and attempt
> to manage it with AQM when needed. Experiments with fq_codel were
> started a couple of years ago, and I helped add support for it to their
> custom router interface early last year. However, it's only actually
> been enabled on a couple of routers, because:
> - it takes a while to update routers in this environment
> - some of the routers run kernels prior to fq_codel support
> - congestion doesn't usually last long enough to give it much urgency,
> and sometimes it's fixed by just adding capacity
>
> IMO, fq_codel isn't ideal in this situation. When there actually is
> congestion to manage, flow-fairness means that one user can dominate
> the queue with many flows, which is exactly one of the problems we'd
> like to avoid. Host fairness could improve on this, or better yet,
> member fairness using the member database, as members can have more
> than one IP/MAC. But, fq_codel is what's available now, and generally
> usable enough in this case to get started with AQM.
>
> On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:09 +0100, Pete Heist wrote:
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-
>> deployment-
>> observations-02.txt
>> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 01:57:07 -0800
>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-
>>> observations-
>>> 02.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Peter G. Heist and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>>
>>> Name:           draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations
>>> Revision:       02
>>> Title:          Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Deployment
>>> Observations
>>> Document date:  2021-03-08
>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>> Pages:          30
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-02.txt
>>> Status:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations/
>>> Html:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-02.html
>>> Htmlized:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-02
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-heist-tsvwg-ecn-deployment-observations-02
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>     This note presents data gathered at an Internet Service
>>> Provider's
>>>     gateway on the observed deployment and usage of ECN.  Relevant
>>> IP
>>>     counter and flow tracking data was collected and analyzed for
>>> TCP
>>> and other protocols.
>> A few updates in this version:
>>
>> * Improved statistics for the separated "known" and "unknown" AQMs.
>>
>> * Clarified the detection method for possible AQMs.
>>
>> * Added possibility of QUIC-ECN traffic in non-TCP data.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/