IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Sun, 21 February 2021 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tomh@tomh.org>
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 BA8853A1391 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.754 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tomh.org
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 sEKv6e13dFOG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway20.websitewelcome.com (gateway20.websitewelcome.com [192.185.48.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC55F3A138B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm17.websitewelcome.com (cm17.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.20]) by gateway20.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D217C400D6149 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:28:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: from box5867.bluehost.com ([162.241.24.113]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id DyH0l2WeIDT64DyH0lk4hU; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:36:22 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomh.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Wb1v1fSqZybQTfXcKrYSM5GLE9MXWThgJFGscp6sVgk=; b=oHQFv6iDG2Mp+bZknkO8oy4SHh 3EhfHZoxKg++2SuZle3GRk0wIrlMsFTmTSieojMsaJOe3GkqAfFlqsh4tGn3nB51yjF5ntN3a1umu vvg0FcbQ3+f32k6pBrBRVtrY4RCskbUSNXp44BmJEAkETh3zP8mfRgdiBgUZ2fb2jRmtfu2A+GDMb 5Sy3JFuYnTKfcTxmqSxRAt6Lc/YK9fXflizUPBIBeFJSAfTyglGVYqXUGNQVLyfUIbWjUuHPbbk9r R9LUqQtk1Y7XuZRJGBEhBeAKki3TtbL/YLL6CHVQ93m9dS7ofcAX4kvdfBb8+1EPXxmtnFQM+2XC4 G7a5woLA==;
Received: from c-73-35-161-107.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.35.161.107]:46728 helo=[192.168.168.110]) by box5867.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1lDyGz-0047Gf-PW; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:36:21 -0700
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
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> <94BF48C8-733B-42AC-ABC1-246692E2E0A1@gmail.com> <00c450ca-ab87-0904-2a6a-1d53a6d68964@tomh.org> <8567715D-8C4A-4649-B77E-310BE7D4C0E9@gmx.de>
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
Message-ID: <5ffcaeb0-5e17-3e60-6bf0-e046dcf1d798@tomh.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:36:20 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8567715D-8C4A-4649-B77E-310BE7D4C0E9@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5867.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tomh.org
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 73.35.161.107
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1lDyGz-0047Gf-PW
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: c-73-35-161-107.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([192.168.168.110]) [73.35.161.107]:46728
X-Source-Auth: tomhorg
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: dG9taG9yZzt0b21ob3JnO2JveDU4NjcuYmx1ZWhvc3QuY29t
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/mryGfbosqqG9lllQEYsQeAV8yyY>
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 23:36:33 -0000

> 
> 	[SM] Why? Honest question. Sure L4S requires exclusive access to ECT(1) but in SCE promoting a weak ECT(1) to a stronger CE at a later node seems like exactly the right behavior.

Sebastien,
OK, I see your point now; keeping legacy behavior would still allow 
legacy code to generate CE for an SCE flow.  However, it would have to 
be a multiple bottleneck scenario with the second bottleneck being the 
classic one for this to matter, I suppose.

I was hoping to propose a way forward for the backward compatibility 
concerns by decoupling these steps, but if it is not agreeable, I guess 
the deadlock remains.

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email