IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [iccrg] AIMD versus AIAD

"K. K. Ramakrishnan" <kk@cs.ucr.edu> Fri, 20 November 2020 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <kk@cs.ucr.edu>
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 EE5B93A0D38 for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:40:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.7
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_A1=3.599, 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 VfhVIKjhDrHh for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from send.cs.ucr.edu (send.cs.ucr.edu [169.235.30.36]) (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 B9EEE3A0D2B for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KKs-MacBook-Pro.local (024-205-065-243.res.spectrum.com [24.205.65.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by send.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4353721A17 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)
To: iccrg@irtf.org
From: "K. K. Ramakrishnan" <kk@cs.ucr.edu>
Message-ID: <75b5b151-167b-49ac-dc20-f1d37d863e7a@cs.ucr.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:40:37 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/mvd4qvp9umzbzovjgVStf8733-M>
Subject: Re: [iccrg] AIMD versus AIAD
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:40:40 -0000

Folks,

When we were working on the DECbit work (ECN has many similarities), we 
focused on the unit of time over which all the competing flows modified 
their demand so as to eventually converge to a fair and efficient 
operating point, independent of where they started from.

The fairness consideration was based on the action taken by each source 
over that unit of time, which based on the feedback control system model 
we had informally in our mind, was the dominant RTT. Rather than 
focusing on the action at the source on each individual packet/ack, 
since we know that each source could potentially have fewer or more 
packets in that unit of time, we look at the control action over an RTT, 
even if on each ack. the source took small steps. I used to think in 
similar terms as Aurel Lazar had been with their bang-bang flow control 
work.

So, the amount of increase and decrease we were looking at was over the 
dominant RTT (maybe we should have focused more on RTT heterogeneity 
then, but that came a bit later, when we looked at Selective Feedback 
(DEC TR 508), but that is another matter...).

Thanks,

  K. K. Ramakrishnan

-- 
K. K. Ramakrishnan
Professor
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Rm. 332, Winston Chung Hall
Tel: (951) 827-2480
Web Page: http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~kk/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email