Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

ECN

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


swmike at swm

Nov 6, 2008, 11:27 PM

Post #1 of 7 (655 views)
Permalink
ECN

Hi,

On LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) there is talk
<http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/4/151> about shipping the Linux kernel with
ECN turned on by default (it was on by default a few years back but that
change was reverted due to too many sites dropping ECN enabled SYNs).

Recent investigations <http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/ecntest.pdf>
shows that 0.5% of end hosts will drop SYN packets with ECN turned on.
This is approximately the same rate I have seen for A/AAAA adoption in
this tread <http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01585.html>.

Do we in the operational ISP community have an opinion on ECN adoption
that we want to voice? As far as I can discern from
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t8/feature/guide/ftwrdecn.html>
for ECN to actually be useful, we (the ISPs) have to turn this option on
in the routers as well. Is anyone doing this today? What vendors support
it?

When I thought about it, the IP core (10G links etc) first came to mind,
and there it's fairly easy to roll out (since I guess a lot of us do WRED
already), but what about on slower links? Would it make sense to have our
DSLAMs do this? What about DSL/cable modems (well, vendors should first
realise that FIFO is not great to begin with :P) ?

<http://www.icir.org/tbit/> is a summary page I found on ECN that looks
like a good resource for further reading. Is anyone looking into including
ECN configuration into some BCP document?

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike [at] swm


david.freedman at uk

Nov 7, 2008, 1:14 AM

Post #2 of 7 (629 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

> When I thought about it, the IP core (10G links etc) first came to mind,
> and there it's fairly easy to roll out (since I guess a lot of us do
> WRED already), but what about on slower links? Would it make sense to
> have our DSLAMs do this? What about DSL/cable modems (well, vendors
> should first realise that FIFO is not great to begin with :P) ?

Implementing this in an MPLS core is not an easy task, you can really
only do this on the edge, when the MPLS labelled packet arrives at an
LSR, we don't know if it contains a TCP segment or not (fancy deep h/w
implementations excluded), all we know is that , if there is congestion,
we can discard it based on the EXP bits in the shim.

Dave.


bjorn at mork

Nov 7, 2008, 1:32 AM

Post #3 of 7 (631 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

David Freedman <david.freedman [at] uk> writes:

> Implementing this in an MPLS core is not an easy task, you can really
> only do this on the edge, when the MPLS labelled packet arrives at an
> LSR, we don't know if it contains a TCP segment or not (fancy deep h/w
> implementations excluded), all we know is that , if there is congestion,
> we can discard it based on the EXP bits in the shim.

Please see RFC 5129


Bjørn


david.freedman at uk

Nov 7, 2008, 3:00 AM

Post #4 of 7 (619 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

Interesting , I hadn't followed this since draft-ietf-mpls-ecn-00,
, I eagerly await a vendor implementation :)

Dave.

Bjørn Mork wrote:
> David Freedman <david.freedman [at] uk> writes:
>
>> Implementing this in an MPLS core is not an easy task, you can really
>> only do this on the edge, when the MPLS labelled packet arrives at an
>> LSR, we don't know if it contains a TCP segment or not (fancy deep h/w
>> implementations excluded), all we know is that , if there is congestion,
>> we can discard it based on the EXP bits in the shim.
>
> Please see RFC 5129
>
>
> Bjørn
>
>


swmike at swm

Nov 7, 2008, 3:04 AM

Post #5 of 7 (627 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, David Freedman wrote:

> Implementing this in an MPLS core is not an easy task, you can really
> only do this on the edge, when the MPLS labelled packet arrives at an
> LSR, we don't know if it contains a TCP segment or not (fancy deep h/w
> implementations excluded), all we know is that , if there is congestion,
> we can discard it based on the EXP bits in the shim.

I did some more checking and neither 12000 (IOS) nor CRS-1 seems to
support WRED with ECN (at least the command doesn't show when I create a
policy-map), so I'm going to ping my Cisco SE and hear about what's going
on.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike [at] swm


Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

Nov 7, 2008, 9:31 AM

Post #6 of 7 (612 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:27:58 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson said:
> for ECN to actually be useful, we (the ISPs) have to turn this option on
> in the routers as well. Is anyone doing this today? What vendors support
> it?

The only thing that's *required* for it to help is that the routers and
firewalls not actually *molest* the bits in the TCP SYN packet. If you pass
them and *do nothing else*, it at least has the potential of being useful at
some other router along the path. And let's face it - if *your* router is
congested enough for ECN to matter, there's a fairly good chance that the
router one hop up/downstream is *also* seeing some effects. Even if *you* don't
do anything else, your neighbor might - helping you out in the bargain.


hank at efes

Nov 8, 2008, 8:31 AM

Post #7 of 7 (614 views)
Permalink
Re: ECN [In reply to]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Valdis.Kletnieks [at] vt wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:27:58 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson said:
>> for ECN to actually be useful, we (the ISPs) have to turn this option on
>> in the routers as well. Is anyone doing this today? What vendors support
>> it?
>
> The only thing that's *required* for it to help is that the routers and
> firewalls not actually *molest* the bits in the TCP SYN packet. If you pass
> them and *do nothing else*, it at least has the potential of being useful at
> some other router along the path. And let's face it - if *your* router is
> congested enough for ECN to matter, there's a fairly good chance that the
> router one hop up/downstream is *also* seeing some effects. Even if *you* don't
> do anything else, your neighbor might - helping you out in the bargain.

See:
http://www.icir.org/floyd/ecn.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t8/feature/guide/ftwrdecn.html

-Hank

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.