IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [iccrg] [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 10 March 2020 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6A43A0F49 for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 KoEaUqDDxv-A for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3123A0F44 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id f10so13329442ljn.6 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBI79D7R8sFNSCMBvXd7m+CoAfpkM8EM9Y1s4Fbu3UQ=; b=umHkv6Lsva/KhhsoSjE1I8zkOQyN5O8fHsjz+LNGOco+nyik4VNah6D2EOX09ioIP0 +DmC35O3gfSY+1bfAYlL6VpWavJKBQKVbt81Z0dd3ny8Dp+T6FmBEHrrZZNg7AGix2V6 ffG86HBVCI4nUao4tzp9rj24grnqfzVJqrqRwwiUve0hKifhDWHHoWmFeMNagcHDDf2e g1D94QTmsvbBdxYhp7fOVyn/1gVdHPWwYLv2GFpdoGrS6tTIdvLOgBCEk8+C/QRsUjSu 7yJT7B74VHWIgBhubLPbz7Vdb65W8/1LgKQoP+Qlq3G0n6y/Sr0+FjHHRvtkkjLe3ngY eaCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBI79D7R8sFNSCMBvXd7m+CoAfpkM8EM9Y1s4Fbu3UQ=; b=HNXojcSiRr8dsM3vxiFsWkBDkOBdQNAmsYrvXP7Xy7SCC4HBs7+8US5hdCojgXzpCj TEVP4ekui5jHBjpdncW/uCPibh9VRdggKQzIy24//z5TwfELQvoOwJsNInKda0gvkapu SdOrRmKoGfiy648+Zrxp7swHFkP1Pv5Omomcq6mmfsuRLHFXKcjWVX8k4VgM5wpQVfM7 LZ3eGkRGu/Z0DT2XRKit16e6xmPxfQkV/v0/m2ofKad+ebeWG6GK9PBTcdIDNrxaI+Wu slMDsb7XWGU9mOYy+CMrEeV4eN7tO0otRJyd/GneLrOSzsZ4I6aqr58i26fzVJs+MX+s UVgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1wUaQH8mjb+A0YOJc0N6os2FVPcHLxydkzl5OKy/rsN7GEM6QQ kuA66BCsIpDn6Ws0DNqyqs4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsCJb0vNT842Zh35gCwvMpNe1Bvfa22ir+vxO9jQjdukt8CmCIQAUblGkG6A0U6zbZYukHnQQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1065:: with SMTP id y5mr10723435ljm.121.1583833405371; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-250-250-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.250.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm13529196ljp.24.2020.03.10.02.43.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB44251B019947CDB6602B30B2C2FF0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:43:23 +0200
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "iccrg@irtf.org" <iccrg@irtf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <599718B0-DAA8-44D2-A1A7-9AC32F60AD86@gmail.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB44251B019947CDB6602B30B2C2FF0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/Do7NCWR5WAjFoOy6I0UDMKxpf6E>
Subject: Re: [iccrg] [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S
X-BeenThere: iccrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of Internet Congestion Control Research Group \(ICCRG\)" <iccrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iccrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iccrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:43:29 -0000

> On 10 Mar, 2020, at 10:02 am, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I recently updated the readme on the SCReAM github with a comparison with SCReAM in three different settings
> 	• No ECN
> 	• CoDel ECN
> 	• L4S
> https://github.com/EricssonResearch/scream#ecn-explicit-congestion-notification
>  
> Even though it is more than a magnitude difference in queue delay between CoDel-ECN and L4S, it is fair to say that these simple simulations should of course be seen as just a snapshot. 
> We hope to present some more simulations with 5G access, and not just simple bottlenecks with one flow, after the summer. 

Looking at the throughput numbers, I also notice the L4S case has less than half the throughput of the Codel ECN case.  That seems like a significant tradeoff for the lower delay numbers.  In fact, even though the throughput *before* the capacity reduction is less than the capacity *after* it, the throughput is still halved when the capacity reduces.

This seems like something you might still want to look into.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email