Re: [CCWG] Harmony: A Congestion-free Datacenter Architecture

Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> Thu, 04 April 2024 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@tenghardt.net>
X-Original-To: ccwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ED1C16942C for <ccwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.064, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tenghardt.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LWlBMKmM1fJY for <ccwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hemio.de (mail.hemio.de [136.243.12.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CEFC169424 for <ccwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from user.client.invalid (localhost [136.243.12.180]) by mail.hemio.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 573C1B2; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 01:54:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tenghardt.net; s=20170414; t=1712274866; bh=9DIEZa+RUU+Fbg1mi3gpN/aPOG6I/x7DaRbfzj/YjPM=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:Cc:In-Reply-To:From; b=nXGZLZA0lK5LZ+eyA2FIbVIZmDaBvWH41i/jLjQJM/U+za9uKyM+21rfK1Jine+Uz F0Snm/koc0gJXjnUkYOF5km6ctDZvwzKqr6Na73zZGMp82R0XqfNQpbN8Fh3bfv32F /+uZTa8P/6rVcW5/RWGyheN8ctCCYEU2V2yA51H2FJXga6w+KD+t0nqyXXxpl+8GsQ 6vhZ77CTcHmTYaFodRQlg7CP/MYsaq8Xs1hnrnKqC9m9AY2vqOE/PwDI9jeKLHhnGK ukt+YossNC+DK1aRh+wI6ObPbGQYD/tUfUxKK5lRWovbHIy4A6bfQbVSfZXEvMpiVp leesZomnUwl4Q==
Message-ID: <538ab299-9a1d-878a-59a7-8a11b8600e50@tenghardt.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:54:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
References: <CAFvDQ9oJ=bwKh3ZJ3sWNWm4PWKSn+Cuce+rVNDNxkN9vLWpnkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
Cc: ccwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFvDQ9oJ=bwKh3ZJ3sWNWm4PWKSn+Cuce+rVNDNxkN9vLWpnkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccwg/Oj8ZdPtYxJkm3w_xMHOyChPXB9A>
Subject: Re: [CCWG] Harmony: A Congestion-free Datacenter Architecture
X-BeenThere: ccwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Control Working Group <ccwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccwg>, <mailto:ccwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg>, <mailto:ccwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:54:35 -0000

Hi Hesham,

On 3/30/24 11:16, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
> This new paper [1] presents Harmony, "a datacenter network 
> architecture that provides “*congestion-free*” message delivery 
> guarantees with near-zero overheads compared to best-effort delivery 
> networks."
> […]

Thank you for pointing out this work, very interesting!

At the CCWG session at IETF 119, we have had a great discussion on 
potential future work items, with lots of interest in working on 
solutions, especially congestion control algorithms. In addition, at the 
same session we've had quite a bit of discussion about data center 
congestion control and what considerations may go into standardizing 
algorithms here.

If you haven't already, I invite you to read the most recent Editor's 
Copy of 5033bis, which lists a number of considerations that may go into 
CCWG's decision of whether to adopt a proposal in this space, should the 
authors decide to bring the work to CCWG:

https://ietf-wg-ccwg.github.io/rfc5033bis/draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis.html#name-specifying-algorithms-for-u

I hope this helps.

Best,
Reese