IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Sun, 21 February 2021 19:10 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 3881C3A0EEC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kXS0WwkZLCtn for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 9E84E3A0EEA for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q14so51926382ljp.4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:13 -0800 (PST)
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=AGftABI+Qg3oY4Q2DTJDCzZaAPEfglL/nH7Tjk3mvLk=; b=fjQO46KDmL2AMnPbkBnC4yen46m+wKq7rIN8uxa6tspWN7k1vqL8Kr/6ftG1Cinu0E /ByCvd9vrRyfDVFFsAF6JOBcXl0DPrTYNgKwCXkykyXf4AxCIlU/bkIz9H0WriX5MYC+ FVTy/QbcwmTpHocmIZ4qM17Y90Mubv6XcFs9N923OVLYfQ3YCarN4g/Ol7hEL0it2Yoa znlRXj/wfvzK/CxSFT/RJ9riLU/oVG9odSPpl6P98SPZTPUdIpNn81dxdq8g14ZwPPkH MTzsmLM0EaUgcd8dJ9b2Z+y/7GvZd55ObWxiNIhYKX8rWAYXtI2/ZlxjrjThbei5Yw/h EO7g==
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=AGftABI+Qg3oY4Q2DTJDCzZaAPEfglL/nH7Tjk3mvLk=; b=LBK234gllrSWu6iscEQrfzmaaKJ6iTyATzcYxcTO2NzuRiNxAQUL+shk2RQbOzB5k0 gFAdWUTjCr7lJJOyv6uDFZQN/pPkat1beTor0rI9UbefiV5TG3ytPahpUZ2ty2IoHyAB +7HzRDHVV7b2OB69GhrMl2M4NxeN//sTKtbYUElRi1iaHk4SZpDiK8B6pFwqED6sIumU EkZQhc5DJwh5RouVUVnl6vrxRQX77XYj2vQzb/tKbVGlqEyDPFUxz4TJoy3HHhmRY8On 83/Khb+xYir1jW+V1wQQyOcI+fo/P+r/ar31/Mz1jgd62hAzn+Y6r8g6p16fXHzCE0f4 zjMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rv4nLB5RbzEDusdxyX3oTPPClfJ2k7YbqUsFdaNHScJELSeqk dP8eVInC9glbwpWT62BkJs0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAyEQO+K6oXV1nUitYeKO+zhvhk9eOD/SnHi/91I6ObbdTMidCLy7wTav6OzvPoLESr2/TEA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9707:: with SMTP id r7mr3341988lji.359.1613934611589; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (176-93-29-60.bb.dnainternet.fi. [176.93.29.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i13sm1644710lfo.203.2021.02.21.11.10.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eef468c8-1152-f6e8-cfbf-c80cb2d465a0@tomh.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:10:09 +0200
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <94BF48C8-733B-42AC-ABC1-246692E2E0A1@gmail.com>
References: <161366419040.16138.17111583810851995947@ietfa.amsl.com> <BF0810D9-E742-4FCB-90B1-6957551B585D@heistp.net> <b222bbdf-70ae-3e5b-b122-1160299fb4e2@bobbriscoe.net> <E7CC88FA-F064-4B72-BAA9-8BE40F7AF040@gmail.com> <52cb434a-bd91-6260-7be9-85bdbd07b625@bobbriscoe.net> <BCAB7068-A10A-4FC4-9719-E300F644262C@gmail.com> <43f43fa2-69c4-bc10-3ffb-e95e41809335@bobbriscoe.net> <4835a3cd-4d88-68ac-d172-1e21bc42a150@bobbriscoe.net> <CAA93jw7_yvkqU-uxHkbHkO2g_RFmzCmJcxQhMJcBQjo=+QMh=w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB2299CF42CA83576C86070BB0C2839@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <13EBAF97-A9AF-47A1-AB71-546C31F762C2@gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB22999A319816198B515234BEC2829@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAA93jw6GNbgOSDfWo2mQPWSS5GQdTNqtq=fBgspP=MNkyPNtfA@mail.gmail.com> <eef468c8-1152-f6e8-cfbf-c80cb2d465a0@tomh.org>
To: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/mmdCW3OLZ7Tjdl-O23swGl0nkhI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:10:15 -0000

> On 21 Feb, 2021, at 8:56 pm, Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> wrote:
> 
> 1) upstream a patch to the Linux kernel (and ask other OS vendors to do similarly) to treat ECT(1) as not-ECT
> 2) later add options to enable alternative semantics of ECT(1)
> 
> I don't see any reason to postpone the first step.

I do.

RFC-3168 specifies that routers "treat ECT(0) and ECT(1) as equivalent".  So implementing this first step would cause these Linux AQMs to violate RFC-3168.  I'm sure the kernel maintainers will be justified in rejecting patches on that basis.  Certainly I would raise such objections were such a patch to come to my attention.

To make that objection go away, you must first update and obsolete RFC-3168 so that it no longer contains that requirement.  That requires convincing the IETF that it's a good idea.  Again, I will maintain that it is a spectacularly bad idea.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email