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

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Tue, 10 March 2020 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 E49663A0F5A; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 S5kNzhsf8hMz; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 57A023A0F5C; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1583833532; bh=57TPNoIOTPuyaxSZBG+YPqwsPGgEqDEn3E6SZpsVHKc=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=YVMASFYu7VyxBN9/yGOIx0kj89JgRkDfJnttm+WdcYWE/ntBMhLEabwQAddbbN4Vu RvhL4YAjI2IT9WRAsn+yRGEnHtOMuCsMykdvzaUzIZR0jWkhtm11qMVoKSYJupfK2m AXk0N8NVvCHVU6IPLNpGHzBDBpVkzhuJ4Vf5mjX8=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.11.12.22] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MZTmY-1insK53W0E-00WUOs; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:45:31 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB44251B019947CDB6602B30B2C2FF0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:45:28 +0100
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: <A2300F8D-5F87-461E-AD94-8D7B22A6CDF3@gmx.de>
References: <HE1PR07MB44251B019947CDB6602B30B2C2FF0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:DjvHF3wK4tnsv2M6qWY/uxxC63Jro03N0VDiYeZ0eQA0jZiPrni bB/SYzNvQjB8O16fO6n0mK92jFV04FyFkALNgMuyIyS0mcdUVtVbYofpnxZhuHTlryfkAVG Ir1HU0EiRrVOjOtfs24ezrpej6MFo3vxsaVagzAiYOeyhz7Djhe6oLnu/f8c5Vvc9bAtCNg GpanRNAyzkQLH3E5b066A==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:HSpO5ZL5sNE=:vNsa2CjWu+Bd+4pSg2hIOI 8o0Fm1STL9FreEAzdCYCZhqYz5bt7+Xp5oZhYhU+zZxY9XxoqFAmo24m5OlIrX0eTqPxFXQOX joLKcB1o7zpfPgmYsTIYBqDOCXZOEX5aopaUBAOP7Tm+Et1yrhyG0omazDP0z77eqVJ1aFwUp kIRf3BZzDyCY3kOWoNAO6Q1gEX0merAOAxRek8C78inui9T+8RXc0p+r5EX9hZ5qK5TaTc9vZ 0Ld9UFLmQqJHU6CLxi0Zstk8Shab2VIsknEjIG+QruIwWpTnsHACYUVICsAwhbZNEQdWQTB4w g5juFwonXyzFnm8RMStyZ79sweleWEIw2UtceQlOmvnBILk7dBr8FA2oXdmiXtf0u07Ej/llw XyvY3rq7+/8p2Ppdr23FRvYKpgRfOdumbYrnMhRTVsq28Kf9vV/SGnt8FxFdVUBl+bC0pRUy3 um1EqLgpivAP7AAwA5HTSuS6pbDLkJbmP6O58iohyBz+GL++pi8h+j68G1+f2iPwcvJLN719g gpLTjOsVcAbg/GS2CcdHTdGGBiYVS+PMFgew94SXiV7n7c1MfuDAw9T4ye1neqlduGzgxoH98 zN72ilbgWY+XwLfr0vZHmcfW8GLtsM5JFZSnWbrtHsPL41MBxxJZ6+0FIQS9iDkcdoDUiV7l8 ptHj5uIMeVhmyXlmLOkfbGJGsJLMgiwpF1i8aMY4a+uvJ879SN4KuxPNLHGIFGvsII3xtOvOQ Wz1EZoW5XAlGHSKixBw8j906CJGPgZVYQcJyFUF4pr/OqnjM3lDRfccvpyz1Qbo4DTxLOiEJW ob6M8gwfbrbWzfuyOS8zpw19xa1RgcnK3dFCiXfeV2cwoQ9lmE49750oOfY9uxVfNLugWGucl oD/26MPLSv5JyUhYrRO/2qwmfyGsTkbrNxVifZb+Te8Pfrq3/jI4R8DMaYu2XO9SYyJSfUMxr Ctk72HyibtVP09zU4IixLnu2c1SkrJpv7pzXdtgXeyZFTJ9QMdQBAzxQuYN/UpVsQfemT7uLA eRyEI0LoDu4HPJVHJvRXfYQaat1rIXS51OAv2Cj8TC891GKnfhmOMpq2bQzg9hyais/sCinQk L4I87J0G9QllNhUvQtgqmcG7SIzIbtJVdO8QW+YPXwuFyUo/Jgkb/9GuUp+r+MaRLFWp4Jlou pHW0wx6I8Rodix1hZdEexntdrmJ0VevVtO+Oc4KfRWgrtnon/xRSdTF2BZ7AsYjgXGEUvAqym EjCoYkIEX3w1nMF6Q
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/g_xvouL7lhtmiMbZH0LMTE3eN_I>
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 09:46:01 -0000

Hi Ingemar,

thanks for posting this interesting piece of data!

> On Mar 10, 2020, at 09:02, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi
>  
> 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,


	[SM] So, in this simulations of a 20ms path, SCReAM over L4S gives ~10 times less queueing delay, but also only ~2 less bandwidth compared to SCReAM over codel. You describe this as "L4S reduces the delay considerably more" and "L4S gives a somewhat lower media rate". I wonder how many end-users would tradeoff these 25ms in queueing delay against the decrease in video quality from halving the bitrate?
Could you repeat the Codel test with interval set to 20 and target to 1ms, please? 

If that improves things considerably it would argue for embedding the current best RTT estimate into SCReAM packets, so an AQM could tailor its signaling better to individual flow properties (and yes, that will require a flow-aware AQM).



> it is fair to say that these simple simulations should of course be seen as just a snapshot. 

	[SM] Fair enough.

> We hope to present some more simulations with 5G access, and not just simple bottlenecks with one flow, after the summer. 

	[Looking] forward to that.

>  
> Meanwhile, the SCReAM code on github is freely available for anyone who wish to make more experiments.
>  
> /Ingemar
> ================================
> Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc. 
> Master Researcher
>  
> Ericsson Research
> RESEARCHER
> GFTL ER NAP NCM Netw Proto & E2E Perf
> Labratoriegränd 11
> 971 28, Luleå, Sweden
> Phone +46-1071 43042
> SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
> ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
> www.ericsson.com
>  
>   Reality, is the only thing… That’s real!
>       James Halliday, Ready Player One
> =================================