Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs

Jonathan Morton <> Fri, 19 February 2021 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941523A0853 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChiPIQUdvD1U for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEFF73A084D for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v6so31381221ljh.9 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3fG58r7BQU1lT+6YFh1nqxu7RK4bER/nlFbURBN4HfE=; b=MrcxxYSOSeHzhoPDhqLhuGZWUJLqlwsGcC6KZikOteTkF9/B3lLDYtR7d6Mgs70Thi NRRizrCcvtWMp9vr7Rz9MzD1GsBOIt5BxlrREmyyA5gBFlxUoNhETNgpqZtMGubWBRtb SpBUI1vE4QoNYUdgdFis77Z1KQoOlmmxWOF0VZxaFdQuTH5lUAsMM7DBmYs6KMO7IxqK SM5+bsqdxvx9aLIk4/gbAAM0RRmZ+IwKfwewlb4dc/IVbEGx+1mcedTPMKQQdXckko0i 0ZGscT7CDFeZ4CLjbxtE2bd21k9dSgHqg/5QUVOnn5qULqBpMqRelWm3PrzusHi0OG57 w2fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3fG58r7BQU1lT+6YFh1nqxu7RK4bER/nlFbURBN4HfE=; b=X097de1fysdzMcCu+iUtkO30q0yp8rrDsPu6C6Mi1TrDtdVLJ4OTLDxxBmabg28gCG 0hAc98iucbAMUErsRkFcxl63nEeV4PFD6djclnd8AbTFmCGF16nv/xkrH6NeoGUMB6yO 0lDDVeN4s3PF+dxqif+bBA6QQDgh2Y284Khpxuxbeo6qE6tF+F9r1lTTCNpvhuOh5dSM BOmBn0uKmDmYj1ZQRvwItIUKaxH6HQ5K0iFJsMDvfAU3eicXoUcr0lVP7zxKgAN5GzaH n4omo9VKj0/Tby2dhEsEHZ90aIg7F/olQI+THmropTldMPrDoq02OBPLP1L6/ReMjciQ g/yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531D7N54to/B66277siGa+JeosLH0wuRasXij/PiWXOmEg7R1G4I sN6kva2uUP8XavgUMZgngYQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgJFQvLC8kvYjrNlZ/a2shKAY0CODluHESmhLOCEuazkvNEcv+ruGr8FaVGv01b0ftpjezRg==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:3f54:: with SMTP id m81mr7466897lfa.134.1613779182946; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c207sm1059920lfd.292.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 01:59:41 +0200
Cc: Pete Heist <>, TSVWG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:59:47 -0000

> On 20 Feb, 2021, at 1:26 am, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
> You are talking about instantaneous rate fairness, with no concept of occupancy over time. There's been so much more water under this bridge since the 1980s/90s. Try this:
> Clearly you never read/absorbed what I wrote for you (specifically for you more than anyone else) about this:
> Per-Flow Scheduling and the End-to-End Argument:

I've read your papers already.  I happen to disagree vigorously with their conclusions, and I believe others with far more standing than myself also do so.

> I can tell 'cos:
> a) you somehow think I am arguing for RTT-fairness (when have I ever done that?) and

I'll quote you:  "…it would be preferable to deploy a FIFO AQM there."

If you pass AIMD traffic through a single FIFO with a single AQM instance, what you get is a (slow) convergence towards equal cwnd values and thus RTT-fairness.  That is not a controversial statement, but the truth.  And that is what you explicitly recommended just a few sentences before asking this question.

> b) the assertion that max-min fairness is the gold standard. If you had read anything from me, you would at least make a nod to my explanations about why max-min only makes any sense during a persistent famine (I mean famine for hours/days/weeks), and in all other scenarios max-min is the opposite of gold - it's the most rubbish monkey-metal crazy standard in a non-famine world.

That is precisely where I'm aware of your point of view, but diametrically opposed to it.

At this stage I can only recommend that you install Cake, turn on the host-and-flow fairness options, and just try it out for a while.  You might be pleasantly surprised by how well it works in practice.  In fact, until you have done so, I will simply not respond to any further posts by you on this subject.

 - Jonathan Morton