IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Dual-Q Pol[i]cing

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 BA6343A0D8B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 b_zGbkbRdrwH for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578923A0D8A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6429ED8D60 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 12:21:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=W+WI4SctJ6aQhH6O4xC7wd+qRJ0=; b=ptLp41 e95zv7tAfhaEdkvx+GECj7DgoOXlxaFbU+2SFD7qR3LwCBFwmhFbR6keYVv39PVJ D3EZyiwCCoS34x4j1awNKiHVdvvGCYgNYstIlyBpuPLtLWgWDdn2/BeT/p5CW8Yb g86hY3x5HREIOpQN9MPCYZvW3VYz4/AJ3LIWk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=xQsaRGdpq2XhwGv66MaSWSG9+vKfavms kS9CBgY8oP0T3T6KCjblfsqkPVQNfR/OzkZKGh+Mb2KEhOSSXGZTAUuoj2nq01FH NO9/KT4kfF9eSX9U5HwA19wUvI1qCbWAHD0TMgcoNlXOGhzpgMh5nDHqjZ4AbbeP 24N2MW6KURA=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C485D8D5F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 12:21:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0766D8D5E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 12:21:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id o5so19056864iow.8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532s2ug2iHzBj29dqIHRpSkBG26msa7pOieTB4rwfp1uOYZMsKwV Rsq+MMEv+RZQ0+4cGmYpvbyEaybGtyWa5Z/RgvY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwH9qjeI7qxO7plZMslV8wzIz8Oyy1fFxrd5tAUmIvwzH1yq2nz0GlWc3YaFPoTIZi4b4FZZb6TE9pQm8CGXM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8411:: with SMTP id h17mr14072991ioj.1.1590423689449; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <dbc71da6-70f1-7369-1d2d-f08fb3b08b69@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <fcfdb230-eba9-3605-2a20-682ab6c19463@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <61F585DE-C67A-4AE8-9FCE-878D3C335B3F@gmx.de> <1615692.bXXitL1V1t@linux-9daj>
In-Reply-To: <1615692.bXXitL1V1t@linux-9daj>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:21:17 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VFSaN3MKhqoyvT+FCK2WWQsYSisN2U57-i=cs_qCxjLbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VFSaN3MKhqoyvT+FCK2WWQsYSisN2U57-i=cs_qCxjLbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CAE92D2C-9EA3-11EA-88AC-B0405B776F7B-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/vsKUXUZREq1nLJu_lEvBFq5f_HU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Dual-Q Pol[i]cing
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: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:21:36 -0000

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 8:50 AM Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Monday, 25 May 2020 10:00:30 UTC Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> > ... Is everybody else convinced that L4S offers a sufficiently
> > safe design and was tested with the to be expected level of adversarial
> > traffic patterns to confirm the design's safety in the real-world?
>
> so, no, i am not convinced, but that doesn't matter. what matters is that
> if there is an input signal marked on a flow, datagram, packet, or segment
> which would cause my routing or switching equipment to behave differently,
> such as choosing one of two "dual queues", then i will likely never enable
> it, and if i do enable it i will bleach that mark out of inbound traffic
> from the WAN.

Because it may inform the conversation, is your current policy to disable ECN
marking and/or to bleach ECN bits out of inbound traffic from the WAN? Per
RFC 3168, those bits are intended to affect drop vs mark behavior of routers.

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email