Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Sun, 11 October 2015 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210AC1B2ED9; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35-9S9ZgkdU1; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4290E1B2D68; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykdg206 with SMTP id g206so122051071ykd.1; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=svQjQ6Din+BiuX/H1SmpplY11EU3uqHzP/QpPefC5Xc=; b=byFE9slpUBOOnuitlWk3iPUftKfsStPqSaK79fIO09YRK8dq/v/wWStmXWRbNBIBU0 b0C64wvOmsTHp0ze196NblX+HsXvrup1e0OqyKlcHRJ3zwRNAGJ1uXVwLSFV7N1eyREv flJQdfbj/X8y6PMru9r8BXhy1QyTWb9gXDHviK8iLlLhu4sebOpF1a3zjkg3BFt/IW/0 l+3JOSKMZPDxfZQ2b/bHBROGaMENMsBNl1KwmxbkClMmXtAEOB1aXfOIMw5SEFWoQZU/ G8tapaSwnQneiTHpNDEpZMbQ5iWKvP7xd61C63Df+MxIBmTPEU2mlNWc5WsAKEGk2VmW ft4g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.153.22 with SMTP id q22mr17969726ywg.328.1444606485496; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.33.66 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.33.66 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510111526050.10958@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <5618005A.8070303@isi.edu> <70335.1444421059@lawyers.icir.org> <D23D8CA5.54DF5%g.white@cablelabs.com> <56183B49.4000506@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091511540.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <56183E93.1010308@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091528320.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5618420E.9040609@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091628010.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5618554F.3080103@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091716100.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <56185E44.9050702@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091910170.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <561891C3.90004@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510092134190.15683@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5618AF0A.4010101@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510101439090.1856@nftneq.ynat.uz> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510101525170.1856@nftneq.ynat.uz> <F62FF3E5-EC9E-4534-B005-2A987C63C41D@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510102042280.1856@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5619F00A.2040009@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510111358310.2053@nftneq.ynat.uz> <561AD47B.9030602@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510111526050.10958@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 02:34:45 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJq5cE1KM-wxTB8nB_AbXcniLbCbHn6M=4bM0uaLRY2s=YNUjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b865e688b5c0521dca81f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/DUrbuvwErF2X_xnRW2bRVr13Do8>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram \(Wolfram\)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 23:34:47 -0000

> My contention is that since this is already happening, consolidating the
ACK packets into stretched ACKs doesn't make this any worse, and it saves
network bandwidth (and decreases latency to the extent that data is acked
faster than waiting for the entire chain or original ACKs to get through,
especially if that would take multiple transmit windows). As a result,
thinning the ACKs is kinder to the network.

I agree, *iff* they are not DupACKs signalling packet loss.  Do existing
and future cable modems take that subtle distinction into account?

- Jonathan Morton