Re: [tsvwg] Switch testing at 25G with ECN --SCE Draft

Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com> Fri, 09 August 2019 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <g.white@CableLabs.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 968251200B8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cablelabs.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 d2H6rtRkpIzA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr770117.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.77.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B01F12006B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FjRi4ORbV6uWmcUFYcpVSeYzF0Ie8YimQ2MLXF/gwtirHrQfomwSz1vdCtM2rrgwIDswlRhp6eCNULFHsUwsIL+rAuGDC0rio/yeYeFINkhIUrObOF0ao0nwFHMI038IUg2wIWNL2Z9zMDwVmtR8iguixXCLMC/YfZWPe4qMp5sP244QwwfdeHOwUkMy6tXMuWb0UZzXQUKKtMIe/DYSyorKC89866YGhOeKjFTB7J9hGInW++UsdguaG33HVKu+qBns8DZ4j6eKWLZqUMVFIGx7Foi9W7H7q4nfScDQ1r01mJ+MMIWlkw9+gwilB05epp3vb+nuIGG3joy4THDxVQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/wEM4z/AiIeddPiu6cqWMnAQkv7TplkhpI1mr9/KHN0=; b=f6TufvnmS7zNoyWHy+SiVIFuz9NXqfnqvKa6zxSGC6zenAoOVTtZ1f8EhtcGnNeizGkeBJqUDGAGoTCfGugRuT74ACMVc2jI4IfuW0nkVZxrmHFmO+Fwn1RtyMXv6vlBAGxdMzrPGDglZO3eRV3CSHnp+BpeYNV3dfQSU2cvMLa3OHBWv/1PN60aROrAIDbvLbv0n2QQDfNqFLDQJUKYtLXuGRm/auVP7i7croqQSEghPuKjjfqkICQjQd18+98UNtHxS8m1hFW2jWTAfsd9lL2M3Rj6MiS6aT4zZVc3EWSGxrDOwJhB1RD+Sh1TWlXi7Z319bd2VUL4YdUwDFYceg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cablelabs.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cablelabs.com; dkim=pass header.d=cablelabs.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cablelabs.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/wEM4z/AiIeddPiu6cqWMnAQkv7TplkhpI1mr9/KHN0=; b=V8Rh9+/EHc8Ff137WycGMNfA8kO6fODxasiKlUzrBPs58aOkI5VfgjWvtarbLdZqq2xLFRzx13PtLlQ4aNNr3lF5wZUos4rcDsS9cq0hH5Ft3cUgTvBPFJOkiqniUamQ6Uug/CxqCWLbt9o2nzFfMt4ySR3bbuo4L3mNwg5E4I0=
Received: from SN6PR06MB4655.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.135.117.85) by SN6PR06MB4464.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.135.123.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2157.18; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:54:18 +0000
Received: from SN6PR06MB4655.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d33:804d:d298:58b3]) by SN6PR06MB4655.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d33:804d:d298:58b3%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.022; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:54:18 +0000
From: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
To: "Scaglione, Giuseppe" <giuseppe.scaglione@hpe.com>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
CC: "rgrimes@freebsd.org" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Switch testing at 25G with ECN --SCE Draft
Thread-Index: AQHVTjzVagH3r6fcc06dVlu/ZJB8+abx5uIAgAACfxCAAON5gIAAekXQgAAGzgD//6YAAIAAZZ2w//+fYwA=
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:54:18 +0000
Message-ID: <6D40C855-EE12-4148-9EE6-E67DE8ADC715@cablelabs.com>
References: <A8E3F5E9-443D-4F5A-9336-9A0E2E72C278@cablelabs.com> <201908082333.x78NXS0T094756@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <AT5PR8401MB07070C672C9F519C05D2D3F599D60@AT5PR8401MB0707.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <81354E22-777C-4BDB-96E0-0B1F6C1DCCD2@cablelabs.com> <AT5PR8401MB070700703FBF2318808238CF99D60@AT5PR8401MB0707.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <C9E9A1C7-59CF-4414-82CE-14ABFE74ADB2@gmail.com> <ADCEE0A5-6A32-4106-8557-029C65B2D4C5@cablelabs.com> <AT5PR8401MB07074B665CF7612FAD66E13899D60@AT5PR8401MB0707.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AT5PR8401MB07074B665CF7612FAD66E13899D60@AT5PR8401MB0707.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190530
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=g.white@CableLabs.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.160.73.16]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 46806b74-2133-4752-8080-08d71d1420ef
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR06MB4464;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR06MB4464:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR06MB446488A2D6250B6D20357279EED60@SN6PR06MB4464.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 01244308DF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(39850400004)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(486006)(6116002)(76176011)(8936002)(229853002)(2616005)(81156014)(81166006)(6506007)(5660300002)(3846002)(476003)(53546011)(8676002)(66066001)(33656002)(102836004)(6436002)(58126008)(7736002)(305945005)(4326008)(6512007)(25786009)(26005)(53936002)(11346002)(296002)(36756003)(110136005)(316002)(54906003)(2906002)(99286004)(186003)(6486002)(446003)(66446008)(66556008)(66946007)(91956017)(64756008)(76116006)(14444005)(66476007)(478600001)(256004)(71200400001)(14454004)(86362001)(71190400001)(6246003)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR06MB4464; H:SN6PR06MB4655.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: CableLabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 7pke0/MXwZuYWZ8gY8roUOv4ypJRrrubNtKHzZo0+ZD4mqkVhsusO/a8v9RwTWtyDf/xVEXHWHdynbiZts9cSQj+dRveC15uUecfJ8iyY9MajPGOI0favs4SRbwCNwASs08RO5InL6fKVQnTfDWrkjYZv73LHJGoEeni5XNfiOucu7Rgie8BWUTuSjHwEoe2+f2xrDCkZdOV8jpNToijOiWVN5c4gKDPrK+aAVVEWb9c2pDy/CzmO3zQD8lVlvDvBs0B+Fr5/gk3lT0s5BOc+q7QyRBHjdbv34xrieVXPuVrQyOz8UpFA3n7sg4IIeWBKd7P+cwREpAAEfVpq//MFAEjKQaHpM9VKyaAZBwkumKTcucERtGOrS0tosz8sHnTae89SfobAOfvzDkF4NZVSedqm+RBzkQL4X/Gw2cUjkw=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <505117897C9EE947896498A3D0C01E3F@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: cablelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 46806b74-2133-4752-8080-08d71d1420ef
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Aug 2019 21:54:18.4443 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ce4fbcd1-1d81-4af0-ad0b-2998c441e160
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: g.white@cablelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR06MB4464
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/tlyS69bRXhefzr9n0w-m23xvaW0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Switch testing at 25G with ECN --SCE Draft
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: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 21:54:24 -0000

Agreed.  I would not expect any different result either, which begs the question why does SCE need two different signals (ECT(1) and CE) in a datacenter environment?

-Greg



On 8/9/19, 3:43 PM, "Scaglione, Giuseppe" <giuseppe.scaglione@hpe.com> wrote:

    Greg,
    
    We are working -- and in beta -- with having the switch natively set SCE bits instead of CE and removing the iptable configuration on the target server.  Yet, I do not expect any different result since the TCP-SCE stack would react the same.
    
    Regards,
    Giuseppe Scaglione
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Greg White [mailto:g.white@CableLabs.com] 
    Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:36 PM
    To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>om>; Scaglione, Giuseppe <giuseppe.scaglione@hpe.com>
    Cc: rgrimes@freebsd.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Switch testing at 25G with ECN --SCE Draft
    
    Right.  Per the SCE method, the switch would mark ECT(1) using a ramp, and then when the ramp would exceed 100% marking, it would change to using CE.  
    
    The implementation discussed here marks CE using a ramp, and when the ramp would exceed 100% marking, it changes to packet drop.  This, as you said, is simply RFC3168 ECN marking, not SCE ECN marking.
    
    I was just trying to set the record straight.  There was a claim made that a switch vendor had implemented SCE-style packet marking in hardware at 25Gbps, which wasn't accurate.
    
    -Greg
    
    
    
    On 8/9/19, 2:58 PM, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
    
        > On 9 Aug, 2019, at 11:44 pm, Scaglione, Giuseppe <giuseppe.scaglione@hpe.com> wrote:
        > 
        >>> Just to be super clear, this isn't a hardware implementation of SCE running at 25Gbps.
        > 
        > I am not sure I follow. The Test setup section of the paper clearly describes the hardware used -- severs, switch, cables. 
        > What I cannot disclose at this point is the exact model and characteristics of the HPE Aruba Switch used. Yet, it is a "real" Ethernet Switch, providing 25Gbps connectivity, configured to do bridging across the four ports and implementing RFC3168 with the ECN remarking configuration described in my previous email and on the paper.
        
        I think the issue is with the way the switch itself marks with CE, not ECT(1).  It's a limitation I think is worth acknowledging and, hopefully, finding a way to remove.
        
         - Jonathan Morton