[tsvwg] The implication of L4S increased RTT bias on T1-ISPs and transit

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Mon, 29 March 2021 09:54 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 AD97C3A36E0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 02:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 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_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 8Yheb-NNUT1a for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 02:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F55F3A36D9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 02:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1617011668; bh=SdiHm8XshkLutN6DCfDTUWY1F9oIxYwAwdEZTTB9Fs4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:To; b=HfWWgxwJ4wc+v/XNRXcI57G//EcnbmgajWrtPU8HY+vpoZICf+Xo6dC2K9jJo0d2k joH3Ric7xZeO6ISiWuD8aqe8Zdqu6Jr4CvFwIgx2Kb7yS9CBFW/X1NDmkO6hSOKj0I 8sPoe6ufBYr+bYPBXVNkXQ5ztlAVgdNmIz4FazR0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.250.106] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MHoNC-1lO3BS0txG-00Euyz for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:54:28 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Message-Id: <DB37248B-5F77-442A-A563-73E2B8F6EFD3@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:54:27 +0200
To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GyvpfV/R7YgYxYUk79R/JOmGNbrBgB4z9FOEDZJJ5w+rEHHnpA0 cTvYht8jsyLEu87RyENsfVk0axrjBB4fCgBNjGN2t0X43oeewTBqcmRUEK1X0z1vClGV0vA Dbwd7CPQ3/Tk0aPrWYa+bjnHtzrQbAqDamq/cWU9qYtyKakM6gR3xotv+WzTIz68MSCyRNG B1ZJcwsIoh/U1OWvlLFuQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Q+GSeMxRKCk=:JMuPIhyDWg4I5SVAWbzQzC WKOZF69G6aHLAVcjoffGwWdo1jkcyhJ28/tq6mG1ebB91EvpXijn+j4zmN8I9GdrcRAXAbLVt uy2sJIzij894KtXZmZxf/49HrlFL2crCvd4gX4yNdK0gLG3gok4xb8dCyoxxiAP4Rie7B6hus /go9F4hr5WjkhknqdkgE39RAuXe4AWkGg1trTvwiboDhehACZD371Sjy3dFyH91cnePzHU9NG Xa8Uf/8VJZMFc+opj0KKQReRxynTqOeuEr24vbSy6Joq2TbtMOZ8tiJgZghmC5Ax8wkTWDRD1 emXI4EMMqSKa2wrgTV69uRLPH6wjvO0rmHdr7KgJJQsi4dfkYasNafbwvoGN69UabZ7wU5uQ/ wRKE0YDMf4QXpnI1j+kiUcOce1GdC1fNfouRGtLqvI7Up8QHgvZmZPmXPvVn4YPv6iTslH0cM VNRByXv8WTL3gJsPyf1x5EEUgouE05w+Qgz5xvDwtl19eWGPMHGc/fmxUAdmbd5LP5eYwddKp fPhPSnFxdkMh2zWZTtyulFoxaBqZbwKL1OZel3UQzBH3dzKYb2YZIhgzjtHioTPbp9rmq4C+N 2qNil0nZJ1JA5WJeEITHbC9A0wAc8rbpxWJtI08MtEhMT5um/5XVcm5CsOXHs/UjgGSn1qOik sjmW+ULe4WGHafcEbVj05voAUw0kWLd7hxsrg6k9q2V3ngASfH7u4xZx8/LNhgRct0Qz7B+50 NlLXUg9kRO61UQszwrrVbJbmZiVBrNAjIAggyYV40QMtMV/OW+389Ocqc8lUFxfdqXmqm8by7 r/XtvhZRmQuyZ8u82tDnCjTCOhHLnyVCB0bm5wIRSie4wGPc9FsZipRnyKm+57+3shdJaPDpP 0TZOSATls0jmXCo6kXiBR53Q1o52gyV68VknaahE+uAhiP/ODs8aEKRzIgc6a2KGazfK6ZnBy KDNGW3MMT5HET+4pRxGo3fGYtk1uRDMkmJpJiNGBdnh8GhHtmmvx77JW5jH1ObEshQWlFXx9d MjdcinpVoE0/T7JPsBN7F2L8UOzfVwaJF4GdhodvlpMIL3R8abVkY9LewNtSzTt5wURlPNp90 BNCo2hb9xFwtoWO/z40JHLZK16PcVAlGVxZkQFbYENck0h10GQ4DMwxtWlojKzZqR5g8dWnyb AGeSl7g4F4lkiYq21CYLlo8ntTbOOkLeVzopdzswZH5L1gmNgUDc5V90W8BUaKtvG2DXg=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/jTr1j1nmWRGl6HZzBXKRbdxuD40>
Subject: [tsvwg] The implication of L4S increased RTT bias on T1-ISPs and transit
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, 29 Mar 2021 09:54:33 -0000

Dear list,

while responding to a related L4S thread, I realized, that we typically mostly argue about L4S merits or lack thereof from the perspective of end-users/leaf nodes and ISPs connecting these to rest of the internet, but so far I do not think that the transit side of things has actually been asked for their opinion. So....

QUESTION: has anybody discussed the current design with its noticeable increase in RTT bias with T1-ISPs that mainly deal in (long-range) transit? I might be worhtwile getting their opinion on whether we should prioritize even more bandwidth for short range connections than TCP in FIFOs already does? 
IMHO this is an interesting question to answer, after all the internet is about the potential to connect to all end-points, so deciding whether we want to give near hosts an even greater boost and are happy with L4S weak guarantees in that regard (will not starve, with not starvation being defined as >= ~1/16 of capacity)?



Best Regards
	Sebastian