Skip to content

Clarify meaning of ecn-marked-pkts and ecn-marked-octets #1299

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rgwilton
Copy link
Contributor

@rgwilton rgwilton commented May 1, 2025

Change Scope

Platform Implementations

  • Implementation A: Cisco IOS XR

This PR is intended to act as a discussion point to determine whether this change is acceptable.

@rgwilton rgwilton requested a review from a team as a code owner May 1, 2025 10:39
@rgwilton rgwilton changed the title Proposed change associated with #1298 Clarify meaning of ecn-marked-pkts and ecn-marked-octets May 1, 2025
@LimeHat
Copy link

LimeHat commented May 1, 2025

Not backwards compatible, but unclear if there are any existing implementations.

we (Nokia) do have an implementation.

@rgwilton
Copy link
Contributor Author

rgwilton commented May 1, 2025

Not backwards compatible, but unclear if there are any existing implementations.

we (Nokia) do have an implementation.

Do you know if your implementation exactly matches the specification. I.e., you only increase the counter if the packet is newly marked and wasn't previously marked?

@LimeHat
Copy link

LimeHat commented May 1, 2025

yes, it is implemented as currently defined; ce(11) marked packets do not increment the counters

Copy link

@pandurangan-arista pandurangan-arista left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As indicated in PR #1298 (comment)

Starting from 4.34.0F, Arista platforms DCS-7280R, DCS-7280R2, DCS-7500R, DCS-7500R2, DCS-7280R3, DCS-7500R3 and DCS-7800R implement support for counting (only exposed via CLI as of now) as defined in PR #960 originally. We are planning to follow this up with corresponding openconfig changes, so that it matches PR #960 specification.

It looks more appropriate to NOT count packets that have previously experienced congestion and changing the specification as proposed in this PR seems regressive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants