IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Flow control quota

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Fri, 01 June 2012 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F8511E8450 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oek+wDr7XQdd for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F43111E83EC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1874918yen.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=xzFWJ0+u/iUKgVm+nA8U5lMBXXLuR+a8YyyEoRG1FLQ=; b=FyT/cueVFqZd0rDx/D1LO7xp1NDdKVW4KNmXmAxz9k0pVn5fqVhL1ERw+9xbrBGUTM TivDPPFjqEaYzYm9HiUh3LtXzbbVWgHvPmRtzTFsZIil0B2bwU54uebghbndWE8iXnhI MdwtT/08RIL6KLTSi1HRnxeEA/+vLK6JhP+Gxl2aBsgoQEqqtQ5Mj3WCGTBnUaVf/XCG LFgEYjt2UyOx/XsFFHBBEBIYHeSV8A86A1AmSneovaTF+OLBhqG9CIrkhdfx+YwI+4oi MMopmxBpzj0i5HkReYq3FazsrU1mLUHLOLrsXxytsqobVvs/Cy/AKzz+UKBB7JarWBYr tEPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=xzFWJ0+u/iUKgVm+nA8U5lMBXXLuR+a8YyyEoRG1FLQ=; b=kQQqfkRCCYZqdG1T4LebgXYMnYEuAxXCMNkmOKDQLd6PAv8zoYW1IBCBYd9lmuIwtt ouUc3O/FGWJGI9/cXb19O/9HvPGwDpDCPTI4fXSR5DspmQLcMqGT/0s1ieSJZXttm57U pyvTFIuLFSSirxgmvHwwWSi8+swmbFttp8smlChQecPxYU2t9//gbM+ln/N0imyqGa/e CioJaBTbQrkv4vmMw7OP7vIyAkKAClrP56wZ7H4sHnIhMExY84rSVKzXkl64HLaucKyc E7+pjnCwS6l6cR6KEK8LiRXbLLDQeCM2SrNYy696/+hwke+nxDBcjt0HN+3++mPWrFCv z+Hg==
Received: by 10.50.185.165 with SMTP id fd5mr1220687igc.46.1338554012401; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.185.165 with SMTP id fd5mr1220673igc.46.1338554012238; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.66.7 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FC880A7.9070007@250bpm.com>
References: <001a01cd3e69$4a221c10$de665430$@noemax.com> <4FC732DC.3000308@250bpm.com> <000e01cd3f1c$af15ad40$0d4107c0$@noemax.com> <4FC880A7.9070007@250bpm.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:33:11 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJaWrUX6gFNLT4xkXLYKHSUH5+Y7AvqN9cD_CwekvsNu3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9340d8369847604c1686489"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmohYxT289siBP7roaHxfY7+5LJErXxpA1Hn8FrDV5MRU0Ia0OM5ukTh10m5PIq+0E9RmDuRCtvxPJbHH0pqSH/h4kE8fk9yX2VtILkSafsfjbVnnvz4Wp5LjLYEnbvXjEbZ8ch
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Flow control quota
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:33:33 -0000

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com> wrote:

> That seems to suggest there's some kind of mis-layering happening here.
> Frames are used for flow control. Does it make sense to use them for
> compression as well? Shouldn't the compression rather happen on top of
> mutliplexing layer?
>
> The situation is similar to compressing the payload in TCP packets. It is
> feasible, but in corner cases it can clash with MTU limits, cause
> re-fragmentation etc. The clean solution would be to layer compression on
> top of TCP layer.


Mux want to control fragmentation while per-frame compression locks down
fragmentation. Yes, it's not healthy to use of per-frame compression before
mux.

Shall we discourage this layering (preframe-compress then mux)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email