> On 4 Aug, 2015, at 14:42, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> <Seriously>I know what you mean: RFC3168 behaviour is latent in ECN-enabled 
> servers waiting for a client request.
> 
> I have proposed that L4S behaviour is associated with e2e negotiation of new 
> Accurate ECN semantics. Nonetheless, even if an L4S client attempts to 
> negotiate AccECN with a server, if the server only supports classic ECN, the 
> session should{Note 1} fall back to classic ECN. So we will need to 
> distinguish classic ECN from L4S ECN... unless we all agree that AccECN must 
> fall back to drop, even if the other end says it supports classic ECN.
> 
> {Note 1} AccECN is yet to be specified by the IETF, but this is the current 
> thinking, which seems reasonable.
> </Seriously>
> 
>> Furthermore, L4S _can't_
>> eliminate packet drops; and IMHO a packet-drop in an L4S stream
>> must be treated _differently_ than a L4S congestion mark.
> 
> No-one is questioning that behaviour on drop needs to stay as in Reno or 
> Cubic. The question is only over whether behaviour in response to ECN-CE 
> should be distinct from drop behaviour.

It sounds as though ELR and L4S are aiming at the same sort of problem space.  
However, I think ELR has some advantages:

1) ELR doesn’t require changes to the response to CE.  In fact, it expects that 
the RFC3168 behaviour, or something similar to it, remains in place.

2) ELR doesn’t rely on a robust distinction between ELR and classic ECN 
traffic, and does not require that they be separately queued.  This follows 
naturally from point 1.

3) ELR uses all three ECN codepoints (omitting Not-ECT) for signalling.  CE is 
used for urgent reductions, and the distinction between ECT(0) and ECT(1) is 
used for finer-grained information; losing this information en route is not 
fatal.  This, I think, is a natural use of the remaining codepoint.

At some point, I’ll get around to writing it up more formally.

 - Jonathan Morton

_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Reply via email to