Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Sun, 21 February 2021 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tomh@tomh.org>
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 4882C3A127D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.755 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tomh.org
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 MUqYSDSeo1jv for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway34.websitewelcome.com (gateway34.websitewelcome.com [192.185.148.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E6943A1271 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm17.websitewelcome.com (cm17.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.20]) by gateway34.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EEBE946E9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:33:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from box5867.bluehost.com ([162.241.24.113]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id DxIKl1iPNDT64DxIKljHCW; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:33:40 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomh.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6Uj1RXeolaUXn4HhbiwsFoPn8R63+fSHz9FAKQOnSiw=; b=YWzhztmEhEmAX8Mp0jo0lTt2xg ReKBz8dAyA890BMmm1amn0ttOGjhpOK5u3iMFlo1oegywgI/hzcrobt28RKEAhGc1vJXyP7Gpv/T6 NCcV4zkYKcLDM7zsza+QeUYo0qkWDIRzJkBflSbXjUtmy66pMpqA/DpRtDbCdb1d0F/ZtqPzNYd5L 7YAOLv1pzJPndgaZJMaAsgb1+WaNYbov7+FHRJj1nj+JAraHr3ZqYpM73+QNcFPWaJ6AHXiM+Qlf3 V/6LEGiTWs6hR1q1AD/ez1nTxqEwcejZKdsPAWDdZNkN5bEUI9+0mPY6sq0WHggEKxpmFFbomlg2V oS9evalQ==;
Received: from c-73-35-161-107.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.35.161.107]:46524 helo=[192.168.168.110]) by box5867.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1lDxIK-003Tva-91; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:33:40 -0700
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <161366419040.16138.17111583810851995947@ietfa.amsl.com> <BF0810D9-E742-4FCB-90B1-6957551B585D@heistp.net> <b222bbdf-70ae-3e5b-b122-1160299fb4e2@bobbriscoe.net> <E7CC88FA-F064-4B72-BAA9-8BE40F7AF040@gmail.com> <52cb434a-bd91-6260-7be9-85bdbd07b625@bobbriscoe.net> <BCAB7068-A10A-4FC4-9719-E300F644262C@gmail.com> <43f43fa2-69c4-bc10-3ffb-e95e41809335@bobbriscoe.net> <4835a3cd-4d88-68ac-d172-1e21bc42a150@bobbriscoe.net> <CAA93jw7_yvkqU-uxHkbHkO2g_RFmzCmJcxQhMJcBQjo=+QMh=w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB2299CF42CA83576C86070BB0C2839@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <13EBAF97-A9AF-47A1-AB71-546C31F762C2@gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB22999A319816198B515234BEC2829@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAA93jw6GNbgOSDfWo2mQPWSS5GQdTNqtq=fBgspP=MNkyPNtfA@mail.gmail.com> <eef468c8-1152-f6e8-cfbf-c80cb2d465a0@tomh.org> <94BF48C8-733B-42AC-ABC1-246692E2E0A1@gmail.com>
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
Message-ID: <00c450ca-ab87-0904-2a6a-1d53a6d68964@tomh.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:33:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <94BF48C8-733B-42AC-ABC1-246692E2E0A1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5867.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tomh.org
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 73.35.161.107
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1lDxIK-003Tva-91
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: c-73-35-161-107.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([192.168.168.110]) [73.35.161.107]:46524
X-Source-Auth: tomhorg
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: dG9taG9yZzt0b21ob3JnO2JveDU4NjcuYmx1ZWhvc3QuY29t
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wQGXs2j2yGZWPhjns1IPPjGL2fE>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] FQ & VPNs
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:33:43 -0000

On 2/21/21 11:10 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 21 Feb, 2021, at 8:56 pm, Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> wrote:
>>
>> 1) upstream a patch to the Linux kernel (and ask other OS vendors to do similarly) to treat ECT(1) as not-ECT
>> 2) later add options to enable alternative semantics of ECT(1)
>>
>> I don't see any reason to postpone the first step.
> 
> I do.
> 
> RFC-3168 specifies that routers "treat ECT(0) and ECT(1) as equivalent".  So implementing this first step would cause these Linux AQMs to violate RFC-3168.  I'm sure the kernel maintainers will be justified in rejecting patches on that basis.  Certainly I would raise such objections were such a patch to come to my attention.
> 
> To make that objection go away, you must first update and obsolete RFC-3168 so that it no longer contains that requirement.  That requires convincing the IETF that it's a good idea.  Again, I will maintain that it is a spectacularly bad idea.

Jonathan,
I do not see any practical downside to disabling classic ECN response to 
ECT(1).  I have thought about writing a draft on this point or 
suggesting an errata to RFC 8311 on it, but decided to raise it here now.

There is a point in RFC 8311 (section 2.2 point 1) that says that 
treating ECT(0) and ECT(1) as equivalent is the preferred behavior.

However, point 3 says that hosts MUST NOT originate ECT(1) traffic 
according to old semantics.  Furthermore, the IANA protocol registry 
says that ECT(1) is for experimental use only.  I have been considering 
whether the above two points are sufficient in themselves to justify 
such a Linux patch.

The data that Pete Heist just published also would seem to support 
taking the step I suggested.  It seems to me that if the WG wants to 
support L4S experiments of any flavor, it would support first disabling 
the classic response to ECT(1).

- Tom