+1, I agree SCE on its own isn't enough.
Before I support adoption as a proposed standard I'd want real-world tests
demonstrating the value. I believe SCE has potential similar to L4S by
providing a similar fine-grained congestion signal, and that it does so
in a much cleaner way.
But there's a
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 11 Mar, 2019, at 11:07 am, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Well, I am not convinced blowing the last codepoint on SCE has enough merit.
I will make a stronger statement: I am convinced that blowing the last
codepoint on L4S does *not* have enough
> On 11 Mar, 2019, at 11:07 am, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Well, I am not convinced blowing the last codepoint on SCE has enough merit.
I will make a stronger statement: I am convinced that blowing the last
codepoint on L4S does *not* have enough merit.
Meanwhile, work continues.
-
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:
Seriously? I had to dig in the specs to find any mention of that, and…
it's all about better supporting bonded links. Which can already be
It doesn't stop there. Right now DOCSIS, 3GPP networks, Wifi etc all do
ordering guarantees, so they will
> On 11 Mar, 2019, at 9:08 am, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> …also meant the packet was allowed to be re-ordered. I thought this was a big
> and nice thing…
Seriously? I had to dig in the specs to find any mention of that, and… it's
all about better supporting bonded links. Which can
I can remember reading quite a few papers where a similar scheme for ect(1) was
adopted - often with additional changes on both ends to make use of this
signal. Including schemes that encoded complex information in the stream of
ect0/ect1...
Where can one find simulations of the interaction
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:
An interesting idea, but SCE marks will appear even when there's a lot
of congestion (at high rates, ie. probably every packet that doesn't
carry CE), as well as showing up at low frequency when the level of
congestion only warrants reducing the
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:23 PM Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Holland, Jake wrote:
> > 1.
> > "Some" in "Some Congestion Experienced" is maybe misleading, and
> > arguably has the same meaning as "Congestion Experienced".
>
> > I was thinking maybe "Pre-Congestion Experienced"
Holland, Jake wrote:
> 1.
> "Some" in "Some Congestion Experienced" is maybe misleading, and
> arguably has the same meaning as "Congestion Experienced".
> I was thinking maybe "Pre-Congestion Experienced" or "Queue
> Utilization Observed", or if you want to preserve "SCE"
the SCE draft is now submitted to IETF! I'm too tired to figure out
what timezone conversion the UTC deadline is in PDT right now, and I
guess the chairs need to move it into the tsvwg working group instead
of individual submissions... and I have no idea what else I missed in
the ietf processes.
AHA!
http://www.hjp.at/doc/rfc/rfc8311.html#sec_3
While the ECN nonce works as specified, and has been deployed in
limited environments, widespread usage in the Internet has not
materialized. A study of the ECN behavior of the top one million web
servers using 2014 data [Trammell15]
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 12:08 PM Holland, Jake wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> You and John have my enthusiastic +1.
>
> It's a frank relief to read this draft after trying to figure out L4S,
> and I think the basic core concept upon which to build the actual
> response systems is very well separated and
> On 10 Mar, 2019, at 9:08 pm, Holland, Jake wrote:
>
> It's easy to accidently read section 5 as underspecified concrete
> proposals instead of rough sketches for future direction that might
> be worth investigating.
This is something I noticed as well, and have edited to match the intended
Hi Dave,
You and John have my enthusiastic +1.
It's a frank relief to read this draft after trying to figure out L4S,
and I think the basic core concept upon which to build the actual
response systems is very well separated and very well framed here.
Please submit this and present, I humbly beg
I would love to have some fresh eyeballs on a new IETF draft for the
TSVWG we intend to submit tonight.
I've attached the html for easy to read purposes, but I would prefer
that folk referred back to the github repository for the most current
version, which is here:
15 matches
Mail list logo
