[149149] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: pontification bloat (was 10GE TOR port buffers (was Re: 10G
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Sun Jan 29 17:58:21 2012
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:57:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <F96A401C-2632-4343-8BAF-0343BCA9AA3B@puck.nether.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> This sounds a lot like most peoples ipv6 rationale as well.
>=20
>=20
> I'm still feeling some scars from last time Ecn was enabled in my
> hosts. Many firewalls would eat packets with. Ecn enabled.
That was, I believe, nearly 10 years ago, was it not? =20
There has been considerable testing with ECN with the bufferbloat folks and=
I have done some myself and haven't noticed anyone blocking ECN lately. T=
here might still be a few corner cases out there still, but none that I hav=
e noticed. What you will find, according to what I have read by others doi=
ng testing is that some networks will clobber the ECN bits (reset them) but=
pass the traffic. These days at worst you would not be able to negotiate =
ECN but the traffic wouldn't be blocked. Anyone clearing the entire DSCP b=
yte on traffic entering their network, for example, would clobber ECN but n=
ot block the traffic.
The key thing here would be to have people NOT clear ECN bits on traffic fl=
owing through their network to allow it to be negotiated end to end by the =
hosts involved in the transaction.
