Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] Comments on L4S drafts

Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net> Sun, 21 July 2019 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <in@bobbriscoe.net>
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 549F5120118 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 04:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.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 XtR-IFXwBKy9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 04:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (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 DA5BB120059 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 04:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; 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=qpClK1w/IVwc/SVw+pK23642qfw53lfM0IOr21MVopw=; b=J3Dvl9U6ZBDvtbMH0Xygr2Bfy1 2JAIgzzL0zY5rm5nzktxNqSH4VDNa3DxP9lqaU+JOsLMSK1GccEGziY/DNVLN+bvBiKXU3nu/Y1US tCjcm/yJ2yehQbSPSTGgciR3MGuWzQ2/c6QOxsN6Kv62Rlq1xpzxaKhqnOA7gFAlPUmzOJitGMBR+ lTDsJmwEKYvRTHwMhLMuQ/gtzDZVm6/ILWAo96x0r9DD/iTyfWm4KyWqcW+0jLTNs3483jfDvLB9d YZ/CkvQ7s3GJvQauOhgwOpZwroXAb8/6cdoH1t5y47PxW8QgW5k3qZolAPdT8J4tiTPc4ZzLEuXn1 cjeLXA9w==;
Received: from modemcable186.232-83-70.mc.videotron.ca ([70.83.232.186]:60266 helo=[192.168.0.161]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <in@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1hpAPa-0000fP-LE; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:53:54 +0100
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <1238A446-6E05-4A55-8B3B-878C8F39FC75@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB3459B1173917DAFBCEB25511B9FA0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <17B33B39-D25A-432C-9037-3A4835CCC0E1@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB345956F52D92759F24FFAA13B9F50@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <52F85CFC-B7CF-4C7A-88B8-AE0879B3CCFE@gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB3459B471C4D7ADAE4CF713F3B9F60@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D231681B-1E57-44E1-992A-E8CC423926B6@akamai.com> <AM4PR07MB34592A10E2625C2C32B9893EB9F00@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <A6F05DD3-D276-4893-9B15-F48E3018A129@gmx.de> <AM4PR07MB3459487C8A79B1152E132CE1B9CB0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <a85d38ba-98ac-e43e-7610-658f4d03e0f4@mti-systems.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363062879C@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <803D9CA8-220E-4F98-9B8E-6CE2916C3100@gmail.com> <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de>
From: Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <22af0671-fdd0-0953-fc96-55b34beb0be9@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:53:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0079BC6B-4792-48ED-90D3-D9A69407F316@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sEhEckGNNh0uyrsB8O__3QPXreU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] Comments on L4S drafts
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 Jul 2019 11:54:00 -0000

Sebastian,

On 19/07/2019 23:03, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>
>
>> On Jul 19, 2019, at 22:44, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I'm pleased to hear that the L4S team will be at the hackathon with a demo setup.  Hopefully we will be able to obtain comparative test results, using the same test scripts as we use on SCE, and also insert an RFC-3168 single queue AQM into their network to demonstrate what actually happens in that case.  I think that the results will be illuminating for all concerned.
> 	What I really would like to see, how L4S endpoints will deal with post-bottleneck ingress shaping by an RFC3168 -compliant FQ-AQM. I know the experts here deems this not even a theoretical concern, but I really really want to see data, that L4S flows will not crowd out the more reactive RFC3168 flows in that situation. This is the set-up quite a number of latency sensitive end-users actually use to "debloat" the internet and it would be nice to have real data showing that this is not a concern.
Both teams brought their testbeds, and as of yesterday evening, Koen and 
Pete Heist had put the two together and started the tests Jonathan 
proposed. Usual problems: latest Linux kernel being used has introduced 
a bug, so need to wind back. But progressing.

Nonetheless, altho it's included in the tests, I don't see the 
particular concern with this 'Cake' scenario. How can "L4S flows crowd 
out more reactive RFC3168 flows" in "an RFC3168-compliant FQ-AQM". 
Whenever it would be happening, FQ would prevent it.

To ensure we're not continually being blown into the weeds, I thought 
the /only/ concern was about RFC3168-compliant /single-queue/ AQMs.



Bob

>
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
>
>
>
>> - Jonathan Morton
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecn-sane mailing list
>> Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
> _______________________________________________
> Ecn-sane mailing list
> Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane

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