On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
How is packet reordering for anybody but the folks responsible for operating
the "conduits" in any way attractive?
It's more that not worrying about maintaining the order, and just moving the
packets as fast as possible reduces the overhead.
--- Begin Message ---
+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
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
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"
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 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 Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
How is packet reordering for anybody but the folks responsible for
operating the "conduits" in any way attractive?
For instance QUIC uses muxing of streams within the same 5 tuple, so it
has use of the transport not holding up information just
Hi Mikael,
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 08:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> 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
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"
--- Begin Message ---
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
