Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression

Steve Bauer <bauer@mit.edu> Wed, 07 October 2015 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bauer@mit.edu>
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 4AA8A1B2E4C for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 JuwLOZg5i9ax for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.csail.mit.edu (outgoing-v6.csail.mit.edu [IPv6:2001:470:8b2d:7d2:ea9a:8fff:feb2:a9e4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE1B1B2E4D for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f49.google.com ([209.85.192.49]) by outgoing.csail.mit.edu with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bauer@mit.edu>) id 1Zjn5v-0002gE-ST for aqm@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:41:16 -0400
Received: by qgx61 with SMTP id 61so12346167qgx.3 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 04:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.233.146 with SMTP id e140mr724769qhc.90.1444218075493; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 04:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.37.36 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0A452E1DADEF254C9A7AC1969B8781284A7D9B66@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510060748480.8750@uplift.swm.pp.se> <D2394BB6.548C5%g.white@cablelabs.com> <0A452E1DADEF254C9A7AC1969B8781284A7D9B66@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Steve Bauer <bauer@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:40:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFxEvqouQv-xkLWXxxBTw5swSFazWSb_Hak3ZOmnBSeQbE20hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/oHd1lFBQ2eEz3RnYvrvKofMwM0w>
Cc: Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] 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: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:41:20 -0000

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:42 AM, LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)
<wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com>; wrote:
> Is this specialized upstream TCP ACK handling, particularly the
> prioritization a general recommendation in all access technologies?
> Perhaps it should be, since otherwise up and downstream TCP flows interfere
> in a crazy queue oscillation that is typically misinterpreted by AQMs.
> Is this topic addressed in some RFC already?

See:

RFC 3449: TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3449

in particular section 5.2

     5.2 TYPE 1: Reverse Link Bandwidth Management ...................19
       5.2.1 ACK Filtering ...........................................20
       5.2.2 ACK Decimation ..........................................21

Steven Bauer
MIT