[tsvwg] Added new scenario to l4s-tests and updated text

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Thu, 03 December 2020 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.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 B5F893A0CE0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:28:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=heistp.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 DuVta2oYbkQP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 559AC3A0CDB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id r3so3352977wrt.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:28:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=viNe4cC9S8wm7+ZOSeXpjOrj+Px8KwNP4vKhqG1muT0=; b=ShrGge3+efcX75loHMLbmGwvf/blUNwgVaqwYf6Zqa4ozPceH4c8Vowupn+0+hBBil W6GAJnIpwia4Bu6AnvwwP9Wy9TNhnaox/yKuoWgNg8gYo2Tbh18NNsYP3N3mrGtcdnYc 8Q7VEvbL3AbrfJHcne4ERiYo58/HIT/4xNOJaggVZ3dSy1zo0qg0syOna5zId4BkhlR1 hgrpBGNV2aVZiDNeuf1xXDXawJHMJc+q2w/M6GIKRDsbrE+JSrrSorgY8NVJYjMudpbq 0vLJs0hOCIpYkAlaBNI4ovxcFAp3kq4Qec95tV+HEnWeGhJqk0kx8CbazmiaktfACUEY 4J6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=viNe4cC9S8wm7+ZOSeXpjOrj+Px8KwNP4vKhqG1muT0=; b=HuH1dXi9AobXdGlCBmECOWn92e7S7CQeyK5+SUEHOIFvK1e1mXlPVnmxOgyHNmA+ln BBMf6xCh9T6VCx7uqYfZG8kR29j/zOriVjT4rUYLE3PrNMCm0DBDZ9sXjNIvIK2YDc14 iLxE8UlAWdt8NyGJ1iJo9m+0igMO6yZNk8wXSA2CL9Ds3b3pikic8nEi+aiJaMDwbwWP pqc+iP+IQPuGwFL8K3QkehgmRxU+PNst1gPR3x1VsXakGat2lyb80moe1lX1mh/SHFDN eWEEPj7mx3bCO4nMVBM7LsQLd14Isq9LIwwtwEVwghNnkNwRfrtizwjXdbg8y+Kz9eYo 16aw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UsFPrFYDQMjDk5d8Ofn3Persu6osnDY80ULlQK8HsXnHKkinQ EIwmKHJd6lOI5VExHLO16GwWGAribsosyA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycj/cjUKeKEOxcH+Fi6FhxoO5NoEUrCdcH9rk2X8WeoYcU1KZlT5S8xJWSHrEDP5CTPfK0Vg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f08e:: with SMTP id n14mr1270716wro.136.1607030935409; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.72.0.88] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 138sm691463wma.41.2020.12.03.13.28.54 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <23dfc223d18c510de0e216718f9b323a97a377c3.camel@heistp.net>
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:28:54 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/v8jQdv5h3hZE2G8rT27pOXeG0z4>
Subject: [tsvwg] Added new scenario to l4s-tests and updated text
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 21:28:59 -0000

Hi folks,

I pushed some updates to the l4s-tests repo, to add a new scenario, and
change some text in response to feedback:

https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests

* The finding "Unsafety in Tunnels Through RFC3168 Bottlenecks" was
split into "Unsafety in Shared RFC3168 Queues" and "Tunneled Non-L4S
Flows Not Protected by FQ", so as not to conflate the two. The former
was elaborated upon using data from the new Scenario 6.

* A new Scenario 6 tests Prague vs CUBIC and Reno in various single
queue RFC3168 AQMs. This puts more data behind the known issue at
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/16, and makes it clear that
both ECN and non-ECN flows can be starved by L4S flows in shared queues
signaled by RFC3168 AQMs.

* A Risk Assessment section was added, where we start to evaluate the
"Unsafety in Shared RFC3168 Queues" finding in terms of severity and
likelihood. Work is ongoing to flesh this section out, but we also note
that when it comes to assessing risk, the high severity observed leaves
little to no tolerance for the likelihood of it occurring.

Pete