Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression

David Lang <david@lang.hm> Mon, 12 October 2015 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
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 095FD1A8849; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 8GWJ7uh4Uw2L; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC7051A883F; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id t9CG949O015849; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:04 -0700
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510121609320.8750@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510120905130.6611@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <5618005A.8070303@isi.edu> <70335.1444421059@lawyers.icir.org> <D23D8CA5.54DF5%g.white@cablelabs.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510121609320.8750@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/QYDR9RWEWEqilYhF_8a87fsePSA>
Cc: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "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: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:09:10 -0000

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Greg White wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/9/15, 2:04 PM, "Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 1) *you* shouldn't be using a mechanism that destroys information for
>>>> others
>>>> 2) *you* don't know where your mechanism will have an impact
>>>> 3) you claim this might be safe *if* AQM is widely deployed
>>> 
>>> tl;dr summary: myopia is why we can't have nice things
>> 
>> Too true.  DOCSIS would have been much cleaner if we didn't have to deal
>> with the fallout from the myopic TCP designers.  :-P
>
> So I agree that most likely, it's beneficial to have fewer ACKs.
>
> What I think people arguing against this practice are these kinds of issues:
>
> http://blog.dan.drown.org/sb6183-dropping-ipv6-traffic/
>
> I don't think there is a solution that we all can agree on, all approaches 
> have their benefits and drawbacks. I think the above article just shows how 
> things can go wrong in very subtle ways.

no question that things can go wrong in subtle ways. If network protocol design 
was easy, we would have had a couple protocols designed back in the early days 
of computing and there wouldn't be the recent rash of new protocol designs :-)

But too much fear that "something may go wrong somewhere" can prevent any 
progress.

David Lang