Re: [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] [rtcweb] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 20 June 2016 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E17E12D0D3; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emc.com
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 uVpEIjUgQmoo; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98A8112D0ED; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.159]) by mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u5KDHLPr009084 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:17:22 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com u5KDHLPr009084
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1466428644; bh=8Xp72uWLcZCT5fKoLzmAn5etgCA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=IwebxAOwqWUN0i5iMpV1G4HvJE6ix0dvZs91TYYHFcsCptOKg+YWjG4rEsdLCfdmo 2Eh6I0zmNSHGew8ya6SvfdumclyauRbSF5h1jPVwuWF+3EUe6EUVKp+/kmb4cZVnA5 Q1Su3kznDMvmlfGbb3+BZi6Yh1vtCAbDhGZ76+eo=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com u5KDHLPr009084
Received: from mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.24]) by maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:16:36 -0400
Received: from MXHUB312.corp.emc.com (MXHUB312.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.90]) by mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u5KDGxoQ000644 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:16:59 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB312.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:16:59 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
Thread-Index: AQHRySnSO2oWwmhohkOlLHzEpySa4p/yV2bA
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:16:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F59C41D@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <ccf9f2d7-2694-4336-0ec9-ccfebfeb0120@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F585D3E@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <d97e30a7-70f5-26d0-c3a4-0497c669f5f6@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F586054@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <D19E595F-7C66-4AE9-92B4-D550A93F634D@csperkins.org> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F589335@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <20160616222548.GB77166@verdi> <0643E158-BF26-4692-8167-B7A959CB20CE@csperkins.org> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F596DBC@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <E16BEA87-1D0F-48F1-A9AC-2729079D581D@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <8C16F1C6-B4A7-4BB4-B215-D7E7EAF308F8@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <8C16F1C6-B4A7-4BB4-B215-D7E7EAF308F8@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.105]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/CrjVf0AbYHAwmWQgvPoPQmNq-zg>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] [rtcweb] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:17:42 -0000

> > But I’m less concerned than David about eventually ignoring it for circuit
> breaker.
> >
> Agree. Loss is the measurement that a CB MUST respond to.

Mumble.   I would be ok with a clear discouragement for use of ECN-CE marks, accompanied by the sort of design rationale here, or even better, a clear statement that lost packets for the purpose of the RTP circuit breaker have to be actually lost without getting into whether or not ECN-CE marks are involved -i.e., the RTP circuit breaker is specified against actual drops as a network protection backstop.

A related concern is that ECN marks may overstate equivalent loss behavior - a simplistic queue management discipline that marks every packet when the queue is over a threshold (NB: this class of marking behavior is NOT RECOMMENDED - a real AQM SHOULD be used) could yield a run of ECN-CE marks that would not cause a corresponding with a run of packet drops.   This is among the reasons that TCP reacts to ECN-CE marks only once per RTT, and might be a reason to treat multiple ECN-CE marks in an RTT interval as not representing drops of all packets for the RTP circuit breaker's TCP-equivalent throughput calculation.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry (erg) [mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 2:23 AM
> To: Mirja Kühlewind
> Cc: Black, David; Magnus Westerlund; Colin Perkins; rtcweb@ietf.org; IETF
> AVTCore WG; tsvwg
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-
> avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
> 
> I think we SHOULD NOT recommend to use ECN marks as inputs to a CB. See
> below:
> 
> > On 17 Jun 2016, at 16:02, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to not use normative language here.
> >
> > However, please note that having a high level of ECN-CE marks (without any
> losses) means that all packets were received correctly. This situation can even
> occurs without high delays (depending on the AQM used), which would just
> mean the services works perfectly. Therefore for me CE marks are a perfect input
> signal for a congestion control loop (where the AQM tell the sender to take action
> - whatever that means).
> 
> We may in future figure out ways to do this to detect significant failure using a
> rate adaptive transport and ECN e.g.  Observing 100% CE marks or something, for
> an RTP flow that is trying to send well below its peak rate decided by CC -- but I
> think this is speculating at an algorithm and adding details here is not a good idea.
> Especially as AQM continues to evolve.
> 
> > But I’m less concerned than David about eventually ignoring it for circuit
> breaker.
> >
> Agree. Loss is the measurement that a CB MUST respond to.
> 
> > In addition one point on something Magnus wrote earlier:
> > "If the implementation only have circuit breaker, i.e. no full fledged congestion
> controller and uses ECN, they can in worst case drive the buffer into the overload
> regime where it starts dropping packets. „
> >
> > I’m not sure about this case. ECN is an input signal for congestion control. If you
> don’t use congestion control but only a circuit breaker, you should probably not
> enable ECN. At least it not clear to me why you would enable it, and it's definitely
> not conform to the ECN spec. Probably we should say something about this in the
> draft...?
> >
> Agree, enabling ECN without a responsive CC is going to lead to trouble.
> 
> > Mirja
> >
> Gorry
> 
> >> Am 17.06.2016 um 16:03 schrieb Black, David <david.black@emc.com>om>:
> >>
> >> Colin,
> >>
> >>>>> ...  I view the current text as providing implementers with too much
> >>>>> latitude to ignore ECN-CE marks (e.g., because an implementer doesn't
> >>>>> want to think about this problem space in the first place).
> >>>
> >>> I agree, but the argument is that doing so is less harmful than deploying a
> circuit
> >>> breaker that triggers too often when ECN is used.
> >>>
> >>> I’m not sure I believe this argument, though, since it seems that any new
> AQM
> >>> that applies ECN marks much more often than at present will have to
> consider
> >>> backwards compatibility, to work with deployed TCP (e.g., draft-briscoe-
> tsvwg-
> >>> aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem uses ECT(1) as a signal to use the new marking,
> >>> while existing implementations set ECT(0)). These compatibility mechanisms
> >>> would seem to prevent the issues with the circuit breaker too.
> >>
> >> That roughly matches my line of thinking, and I'll observe that the original
> DCTCP
> >> protocol design that used more aggressive ECN-CE marking was only safe for
> >> Controlled Environment deployments.   See the TSVWG rfc5405bis draft for
> the
> >> definition of Controlled Environment, and ignore the fact that the rfc5405bis
> >> draft is a UDP draft - this definition is more broadly applicable.
> >>
> >> Going back over Section 7 in this avtcore draft, my views are:
> >>
> >> [A] None of these drafts justify a "MAY ignore" response to ECN-CE marks:
> >>    - draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn
> >>    - draft-ietf-rmcat-nada
> >>    - draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc
> >>
> >> [B] In line with Colin's comment on the L4S draft, I think it's incumbent on
> >> the authors of draft-briscoe-aqm-dualq-coupled to figure out how that will
> >> coexist (or avoid) deployed TCP, and this avtcore draft ought not to be
> >> trying to prejudge what will be done there.
> >>
> >> So, I don't think the current text in Section 7 has justified the unfettered
> >> "implementations MAY ignore ECN-CE marks" text, as ignoring those marks
> >> is not consistent with any of the four cited drafts.
> >>
> >> In more detail, I think making changes to normative requirements here based
> >> on [B] is premature, and I would hope that the rmcat WG could be
> encouraged
> >> to consider the RTP circuit breaker in its congestion control drafts, as those CC
> >> mechanisms are related to the circuit breaker mechanism, hence likely
> >> to be in related areas of an RTP implementation.
> >>
> >> That leaves draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn, which TSVWG
> >> will be looking at in Berlin.  If a normative statement about ECN-CE reaction
> >> is going to rest on that draft, then the reference to that draft should be
> >> normative.  Something about doing that strikes me as premature ...
> >>
> >> I realize that we're trying to predict and accommodate the future, which
> >> is an imprecise undertaking at best.   As an alternative to the current text,
> >> would it be reasonable to say (without any RFC 2119 keywords) that the
> >> best current guidance is still to treat ECN-CE marks as indicating drops,
> >> with a warning that there is a good possibility of this changing in the
> >> near future due to all of the work in progress cited in Section 7?
> >>
> >> Thanks, --David
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
> >>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:14 AM
> >>> To: John Leslie; Black, David
> >>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; IETF AVTCore WG; tsvwg
> >>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-
> >>> avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 16 Jun 2016, at 23:25, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...  I view the current text as providing implementers with too much
> >>>>> latitude to ignore ECN-CE marks (e.g., because an implementer doesn't
> >>>>> want to think about this problem space in the first place).
> >>>
> >>> I agree, but the argument is that doing so is less harmful than deploying a
> circuit
> >>> breaker that triggers too often when ECN is used.
> >>>
> >>> I’m not sure I believe this argument, though, since it seems that any new
> AQM
> >>> that applies ECN marks much more often than at present will have to
> consider
> >>> backwards compatibility, to work with deployed TCP (e.g., draft-briscoe-
> tsvwg-
> >>> aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem uses ECT(1) as a signal to use the new marking,
> >>> while existing implementations set ECT(0)). These compatibility mechanisms
> >>> would seem to prevent the issues with the circuit breaker too.
> >>>
> >>>> Understand, we have at least two proposals to make ECN-CE more
> frequent
> >>>> than packet drop would be for non-ECN packets: possibly substantially
> >>>> more frequent. Unless both are killed off, ECN-CE will show up frequently
> >>>> enough that closing the flow on ECN-CE would kill too many connections.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want circuit-breaking on such connections, there are two ways:
> >>>> 1. convince the forwarding nodes to drop packets if their queue exceeds
> >>>> design capacity; or
> >>>> 2. require the sender to send enough not-ECN-capable packets so that our
> >>>> receiver will see enough packet-drops when a circuit-breaker should
> >>>> activate.
> >>>>
> >>>> (I prefer the first option; but I wouldn't object to the second.)
> >>>>
> >>>> There really isn't any way for our circuit-breaker to know _how_much_
> >>>> more frequent the ECN-CE marks may be. :^(
> >>>
> >>> This is a problem, both for the circuit breaker, and for the algorithms being
> >>> defined in RMCAT. We do need some understanding what the expected
> marking
> >>> rates are likely to be, so congestion control and circuit breakers can be
> defined.
> >>>
> >>>> We _will_ be sorry if we
> >>>> allot the same frequency of CE packets as packet-drops to trigger the
> >>>> circuit-breaker.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Could someone propose initial text to qualifies the current "MAY ignore"
> >>>>> statement?
> >>>>
> >>>> Essentially, for the second option, you might propose text to the
> >>>> effect of:
> >>>> ]
> >>>> ] If too many ECN-CE packets are received, the sender SHOULD send some
> >>>> ] not-ECN-capable packets to determine whether enough packets along the
> >>>> ] path are being dropped to justify activating our circuit-breaker.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m not enthusiastic about adding that; but it would resolve the issue.
> >>>
> >>> I’m not convinced this would work. The circuit breaker is looking at long term
> >>> trends, and in order to have enough not-ECT packets to determine if it
> should
> >>> trigger, you’d essentially have to run without ECN for some seconds.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Colin Perkins
> >>> https://csperkins.org/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb