Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Ingemar,

I have a feeling that this discussion thread is based on a disconnect. I believe that most here agree that Scream is a nice and interesting project worth pursuing. The only contentious point is whether scream working well with current L4S AQM behavior over a single simulated hop, can make up for the apparent lack of testing under even mildly adversarial conditions (aka real internet conditions) of the core L4S implementation and design. If you have made such measurements in the context of scream's development, please do not hesitate to present them here.

incomplete listing of mildly adversarial conditions:
1) bi-directionally saturating traffic
2) asymmetric links
3) long networks paths, >>5 hops
4) paths with parallel segments 
5) unfriendly greedy traffic with less than expected yielding behavior
...

Data demonstrating L4S immunity against negative behaviour under any of these conditions, is IMHO quite helpful for the continuing discussion.

Best Regards
	Sebastian



> On Jun 9, 2020, at 16:11, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Jonathan, you kick in open doors..
> 
> I urge interested people (if any?) to follow the discussion thread instead
> to get an understanding what causes the lower throughput with L4S.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/FFQH_XG0-wbLIt7JRJ33dH8Fyfc/
> 
> /Ingemar
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: den 9 juni 2020 12:10
>> To: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: path forward on L4S issue #16
>> 
>>> On 9 Jun, 2020, at 10:33 am, Ingemar Johansson S
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "Even though it is more than a magnitude difference in queue delay
>>> between CoDel-ECN and L4S, it is fair to say that these simple
>>> simulations should of course be seen as just a snapshot."
>> 
>> Not to mention a magnitude difference in throughput.
>> 
>> - Jonathan Morton