Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests
Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Fri, 06 December 2019 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
X-Original-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD11E120020 for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:00:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 0jDL9Q9j0kwB for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.cnes.fr (mx1.cnes.fr [194.199.174.200]) (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 4F74A12081C for <etosat@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:00:44 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,285,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="12702021"
X-IPAS-Result: A2FwAACka+pd/wYBeApkGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBgX6BdIEFE4ExCoQhkSWFOpQMgWIFCQEBAQEBAQEBASALDAEBgWOCGEUCF4IjOBMCEAEBAQQBAQEBAQUCAQECAoVUTAyGJwEBAQEDAQEhBA06CxACAQgNBQYCAgYgAgICJQsVAg4BAQQBDQUIE4MCBAKCRgM9q10aNXV/MxqIAwOCLwaBDiiBZYM3iRWBEUeCTD6BBAGBXwEBAhqBCxURGAUQIQKCVjKCLASNHhIOIYI+ni0HgT10gjmEZo5Wd4FKh26ELAOLSI5KiEGTczAqgSEzGidMgmxQEY0GF4EEAQeCRIUUhT90AQGPJYExgRABAQ
X-URL-LookUp-ScanningError: 1
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: 'Christian Huitema' <huitema@huitema.net>, 'François Michel' <francois.michel@uclouvain.be>, "Border, John" <John.Border@hughes.com>
CC: "etosat@ietf.org" <etosat@ietf.org>, Emmanuel Lochin <emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr>
Thread-Topic: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests
Thread-Index: AdWqBRbnHNZDGTkjTLC74vSG03YOMQAp+VQAACilVaAAFJrdAAAlKk0A
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 14:59:39 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:00:39 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED2066E@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
References: <BL0PR11MB33949C8A6A226271B7FF9FAF90420@BL0PR11MB3394.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <108da294-d1b3-da9f-a709-91a78d42966b@uclouvain.be> <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED1F89A@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr> <859c5836-b0bf-ca19-a6c2-4a534870fc55@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <859c5836-b0bf-ca19-a6c2-4a534870fc55@huitema.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-25088.000
x-tm-as-result: No--24.032100-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/etosat/Pim_p3OMMCdc9KgSDA3NKK_v4ns>
Subject: Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests
X-BeenThere: etosat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The EToSat list is a non-WG mailing list used to discuss performance implications of running encrypted transports such as QUIC over satellite." <etosat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/etosat/>
List-Post: <mailto:etosat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:00:48 -0000
I have updated the document with a proposal - the burst model includes congestion and propagation losses - the uniform random loss includes only wi-fi losses That may be a starting point for discussion. If we want to include the congestion at the wifi router (without AQM?), which is an interesting use-case, I guess we have to go more into the details of the architecture. A solution would be to include multiple machines and emulated SATCOM system with satellite terminal. We can surely add this kind of regression test, but I am afraid that it may be too complexed as a first step. Anyway, we can propose an optional more complexed scenario if you think his is relevant. Cheers, Nico -----Message d'origine----- De : Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Envoyé : jeudi 5 décembre 2019 21:27 À : Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>; 'François Michel' <francois.michel@uclouvain.be>; Border, John <John.Border@hughes.com> Cc : etosat@ietf.org; Emmanuel Lochin <emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr> Objet : Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests I think the spirit is to use the loss scenario #2 in the "Wi-Fi + satellite" simulations. That sounds like a good test case. We can start with that, but I am still concerned about modelling congestion losses as part of the loss pattern, especially Wi-Fi losses. I can imagine situations in which the Wi-Fi link is the congestion bottleneck, instead of the satellite link. In these situations, the end to end goal would be to pick a transmission rate that does not saturate the Wi-Fi link, and ensure a good flow of information end to end. I am concerned that observations based on end-of-end transport flows mix congestion losses due to sending faster than the Wi-Fi link can transmit, and radio losses due to poor Wi-Fi transmission conditions. I wonder whether we can do experiments that separate the two. -- Christian Huitema On 12/5/2019 5:39 PM, Kuhn Nicolas wrote: > This surely helps ! > Thanks a lot. > > I have updated the document with two possible loss patterns. > https://github.com/NicoKos/QUIC_HIGH_BDP/blob/master/ietf-document/dra > ft-quic-4-sat/draft-kuhn-quic-4-sat-03.txt > If you have any views, please let us know. > > I guess there are still some open questions : > - should we keep all four scenarios ? > - should we propose two loss models or only one ? > > Nico > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : François Michel <francois.michel@uclouvain.be> Envoyé : mercredi > 4 décembre 2019 15:13 À : Border, John <John.Border@hughes.com>; Kuhn > Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Cc : etosat@ietf.org; Emmanuel Lochin > <emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr> Objet : Re: [EToSat] Download > Regression Tests > > Hello, > > We also performed some experiments with PQUIC/Picoquic over a satellite link with Nicolas and Emmanuel. We analyzed the loss patterns and deduced some two-state Gilbert parameters from network traces for two different scenarios. This model is less general than the Gilbert-Elliott model but is allows us to represent bursty loss patterns: in the GOOD state, all the packets are successfully received. In the bad state, the packets are simply dropped. > > Here are the two studied scenarios : > > 1) The client is connected to a wired network and its traffic towards the server is then routed through a satellite link. > 2) The client is connected to a WiFi access point instead of a wired network. Its traffic towards the server is then still routed through a satellite link. > > What differs between these two scenarios is that in 2) we can also encounter losses due to the WiFi communication. > > We count the received packets at the receiver, knowing that the sender > is configured to send packets with a contiguously increasing packet > number: although it is feasible in QUIC, our Picoquic sender will never send packet n if it has not sent packet n-1. We provide the packet counts so that you can also do your own computations if needed. > > Here are the packets count and estimated probability of transitions of the Gilbert model we deduced from our experiments : > > > For the scenario 1: > ------------------- > > from/to GOOD BAD > GOOD 80709 1370 > BAD 1370 86 > > This means that 80709 packets have been received while the previous > packet was received (GOOD->GOOD), 86 packets have been lost while the > previous packet was also lost (BAD->BAD), 1370 packets have been > received while the previous packet was lost (BAD->GOOD) and 1370 > packets have been lost while the previous packet was received (GOOD->BAD). > > > The average burst in the BAD state is quite small, but in our traces > we still found one loss burst of 15 packets. > > The estimated transitions probabilities of the Gilbert model: > P(GOOD->GOOD) = 0.9833087635083273 > P(GOOD->BAD) = 0.016691236491672656 > P(BAD->GOOD) = 0.9409340659340659 > P(BAD->BAD) = 0.059065934065934064 > > > For the scenario 2: > ------------------- > > from/to GOOD BAD > GOOD 38700 700 > BAD 699 385 > > P(GOOD->GOOD) = 0.9822335025380711 > P(GOOD->BAD) = 0.017766497461928935 > P(BAD->GOOD) = 0.6448339483394834 > P(BAD->BAD) = 0.3551660516605166 > > > Also quite isolated losses in general but we encountered more frequent > bursts, and we encountered larger loss bursts such as one burst of > size > 33 and one burst of size 30. > Keep in mind that these experiments are quite small and could be > influenced by the period of the day during which they have been performed. > > > We hope this helps. > > > François > > > > Le 3/12/19 à 19:24, Border, John a écrit : >> The following are the variables we play with: >> >> * Delay - *600 milliseconds*, 1000 milliseconds >> * File Size - *1 MB*, 10 MB, 100 MB, *1000 MB* >> * Packet Error Rate - *0.0%*, 0.1%, *1%*, 5%, 10% >> * Plan Rate: >> o Download (Internet to host) - 10 Mbps, 25 Mbps, 100 Mbps, *250 >> Mbps* >> o Upload (host to Internet) - *3 Mbps*, 10 Mbps, 25 Mbps >> >> The ones in bold are the ones we focus on since all of the above >> result in a lot of combinations. If I had to pick just two, right >> now I would go with: >> >> * 600 milliseconds, 1000 MB, 0.0%, 250 Mbps, 3 Mbps >> * 600 milliseconds, 1000 MB, 1.0%, 250 Mbps, 3 Mbps >> >> 600 milliseconds is the baseline delay. Longer delays definitely >> happen during traffic peaks. Longer than one second delays happen at >> traffic peak for traffic we classify as lower priority. >> >> 1 MB tests are web page object size tests. 1 GB tests are download >> tests. (We would use 100 MB for upload tests but we have not really >> done any yet.) We really have only been focusing large file sizes >> since we have been focusing on what we lose without TCP spoofing. >> >> For error rates, I included 5% an 10% because they represent WiFi >> extremes (and we did try them). But, those values barely work at all. >> We mainly focus on 1%. There are actually two variants of error >> rate. One is loss between the client and the satellite terminal. >> (This is the loss TCP spoofing helps with.) The other is loss >> between the satellite terminal and the satellite gateway which >> connects to the Internet. We focus mostly on client side loss. >> >> We mostly have been testing with a 250 Mbps download plan rate so we >> can see how things work without being artificially limited.. We are >> easily able to fill this with TCP spoofing and ultimately we want >> QUIC to be on par with that. (I think the best we have seen Google >> QUIC do in recent testing is ~30 Mbps but a few years ago it was only >> 3 Mbps so things are moving in a good direction.) But, you cannot >> get plan rates like that outside of a lab right now. In today's real >> world, we run with 25 Mbps download plans for customers. Some >> providers use ~10 Mbps download plan rates. We look at the higher >> rates anyway because we are trying to look ahead and satellite >> technology improves significantly over time. We envision 100 Mbps download plans someday. >> >> We have not done much upload testing to date. So, the upload plan >> rate has mattered mostly for purposes of how much ACK traffic it can carry. >> ACK reduction strategies are important for satellite but we have not >> done much with this yet other than to observe that 30 Mbps of Google >> QUIC download traffic fills the upload pipe. >> >> Not sure if this is what you were looking for but. >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EToSat mailing list >> EToSat@ietf.org >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww >> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fetosat&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc47c9ee >> 8fadc4bc05bb908d7781e1768%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0% >> 7C637109942949480777&sdata=nbhVVrQcHaOLIUvQOuW5CA8UjXQCZXkz7SFyxo >> reGR0%3D&reserved=0 >> > _______________________________________________ > EToSat mailing list > EToSat@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat
- [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Border, John
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Christian Huitema
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Kuhn Nicolas
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests François Michel
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Christian Huitema
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Kuhn Nicolas
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Kuhn Nicolas
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Christian Huitema
- Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests Kuhn Nicolas
- [EToSat] Multicast tools and scenarios Morten V. Pedersen
- Re: [EToSat] Multicast tools and scenarios Su, Chi-Jiun
- Re: [EToSat] Multicast tools and scenarios Morten V. Pedersen
- Re: [EToSat] Multicast tools and scenarios Su, Chi-Jiun
- Re: [EToSat] Multicast tools and scenarios Morten V. Pedersen