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

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Tue, 09 June 2020 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 E32C33A00B2; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 qbPmevtxUA7u; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 E2A533A00C1; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1591712468; bh=JIxWlDZO8UCwOv3cbfZNoW0uQ1nRgzQhrmpHsX88VIw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=g4RptHDkxUX2/yBPoj/gG5vZA0VT9TOqFsYDVm98SVS+ch4e6edZ//N9NOWxiJ3pA 2v4aJUdQE15H3lWBsJdBfoZESiayZ/Wtj5Ua6kL78av/JSDqgm6sHIeq80mXCRz88W AA+x4WIC+OoVnhaP2v9wVTtxZ+9l32wyqeki2cX8=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.11.12.3] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1McpNy-1j8m4k2mBe-00ZyjG; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:21:08 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0701MB2877E21B7F406C3DFCFF08BCC2820@VI1PR0701MB2877.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:21:07 +0200
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <92525827-39B6-4E88-B453-660F8FE22523@gmx.de>
References: <HE1PR0701MB2876AA3CBBA215B9FB895B0AC2820@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <3637517F-63A0-4862-9885-AB5EA7E6C273@gmail.com> <VI1PR0701MB2877E21B7F406C3DFCFF08BCC2820@VI1PR0701MB2877.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:eoTGwbzPB3QGaPXWwFkd/yOFZnTt94tTHlvIWleBw6aFZPt1FAK iR9vnBNLsyvAYsZvSW8oZnsQMkzvFspZ45PnDE5ocuc2dkGSUKZppNQXbdmslq6KhL5HD/r UaKVhtx3MSib6Rp36ZhMb3fh7ulOc+02DRFjnxSPnK91JS2pNM3vZPDIspWiXg/EGtCLzmf o+3rhNQYbPrNPZ0zb0z8w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:2F/nE8ANXvs=:8vu3F5m2FuZfDECpnoIy4F PE3ZRWMlFKSgwa+hOz7Y31Xyt7FyCp9pLoE10e00vE3fihOUr4mgKXYovhDe4HNNanAqtZZkO xpwnGjk3pNHfSsn5TboGDrKpMwvvU8gL3yQBx75pWSAtipgKv+jg7expfBy2YdeFs7zcDx2kN 8n4HgrT6dfFZhdkhpKUtbUk+LPuhOEEPh/oqtTEBUDVHoMdFFBa5+DxDhiItSjZoaTMWOGzcz iKHEfwL+aNPKCtGmJiJdzaYpCShDeymiVSa9K4YxS9l2Bbp/GwUPryPU87NPdv+EcCnSOxRGa CLm1ID7HgkplSr7f2Eu7Pi3/AIVeZxH+EEPaUTywP8+qSJ/a3SGNk3ciV30P/al0Y/sOwd0BW tyITJhEgTvVUlWbmr8jSz9K+YIg9wJ/j/SDU/KzWkFtjjIWW7BtjRxNVj7AOKXNz9NISA3zz8 UOyacQROGn9glmlZduIaGaR/6qidCSN6WMJyXCdpgjlHiJOCuiIHIPtusw+FPGycLEnEyhbnk 0yQJuVbUhpZKuZiGNZDrvNwVCZT922krVKV/DlXl1ZZhLLwwRK1caV70LdyZ2T823vh/mFPOR +G2zId6JwlACNNEunJYc3nJwTVQlFalfstCV44YdbzuV/KUPXJRQQGFJ+fkq+cnot6ndOrMY9 /zaySEy8ItEedKiCYsK7x9NpkZz3Q32FLve9df6AudwuM0dXPTXGhB/bymopOpPzQO28CeWyY RupGZmpzv/+rcbXYVF+8zMwVg2yKuEO03B2q3U5zCmYOQJ8xnXY/TTA3nY8H9NlW1eYM0Uf+I Kw60ruqvytVErfzo7ba0TkeIy4RgzkI7+VniDOGHhpM4KfGwXAC27oqV3yPfbJCQSPPwlh5Vi 63LtfiGzx9UAPL1P8r3IfHNfrukO+5bjOqsUVkX+RW3LuxIOzMTQDEZ2bLGs4I3ng/WobJ2YX t1a4VNdQARhpcBO6UkyymC6qBTvlQ+KlJkgL2xVS34PUCAUBjCl9r7t2vCZ+x5T2Ay1D8/zFH ARkEoxqH5vW2YF79CU4qGzsKaay6BwpVX3A/S/7/KHPhsBJSIWv4ANjG/YKG1aowqnn2n7OnK SfJ6OCcdTd+FcQgH1bVdiYMBXRgb6FbPTC5xPOuZ/0e5xLw8NESgzRC/dv7n/G6rCUJseVGYB 19L92/L+zp2bZxrQmr0elHGpJ/j4ZPRh46cP6PZ3MkgtsHZ6Nto0W1SSH6/DlDxIaTycKfDgc JkUA0X0vNCUfE/371
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/vtk4GuU_7yDZ3Ps8XwqGnxQ9Jcw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:21:15 -0000

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=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 <chromatix99@gmail.com>
>> Sent: den 9 juni 2020 12:10
>> To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
>> Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: path forward on L4S issue #16
>> 
>>> On 9 Jun, 2020, at 10:33 am, Ingemar Johansson S
>> <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> 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