IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [iccrg] New draft submitted for draft-pan-tsvwg-hpccplus-02.txt

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 16 December 2020 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 68A913A1050 for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 23:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 9nHZYJQY-SAA for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 23:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (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 402D03A1051 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 23:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx12.uio.no ([129.240.10.84]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1kpQy7-00080v-6o; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 08:11:27 +0100
Received: from ti0182q160-1994.bb.online.no ([212.251.170.224] helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mail-mx12.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1kpQy0-000GR1-F1; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 08:11:27 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Message-Id: <B0C55DCA-F520-4D41-89B2-CD233821D7FF@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D0B051C7-0666-4A90-9A10-2AB63852F53A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 08:11:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <DE4E4F61-2D63-48CA-BEF7-58FF274154CD@intel.com>
Cc: "Rui, Miao" <miao.rui@alibaba-inc.com>, iccrg <iccrg@irtf.org>, "\"Liu, Hongqiang(洪强)\"" <hongqiang.liu@alibaba-inc.com>, "jri.ietf" <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, "Lee, Jeongkeun" <jk.lee@intel.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Yuval Shpigelman <yuvals@mellanox.com>
To: "Pan, Rong" <rong.pan@intel.com>
References: <3b396b85-d412-4e52-8716-52eac2a814e8.miao.rui@alibaba-inc.com> <7ADC7D48-26A4-4446-A423-A3A6F1536B4A@ifi.uio.no> <DE4E4F61-2D63-48CA-BEF7-58FF274154CD@intel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx12.uio.no: 212.251.170.224 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=212.251.170.224; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[192.168.1.11];
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.017, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: D7BCBB7E84396835DE79329EAE7432118D65FEA0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/wocMvq9ctOcHMkUr0NNjm3dbNsU>
Subject: Re: [iccrg] New draft submitted for draft-pan-tsvwg-hpccplus-02.txt
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 07:11:37 -0000

Hi Rong,

> On Dec 16, 2020, at 3:09 AM, Pan, Rong <rong.pan@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Michael,
>  
> I read the paper that you referenced.

Thanks!  :-)


> Indeed, it is very similar to HPCC++.  Time has finally come to do switch-assisted congestion control 😊.

Yes, that’s what I thought when I first saw this - now there’s hardware supporting such mechanisms!


> I am not clear about your comment on “path segments”. Data center network should be able to support it end-to-end, right?

Oh sorry, is this the only context here? (It was, in the HPCC paper).  Then yes, of course!  I don’t see a problem with this for data centers.
(except for, possibly, some of the issues with “capacity" that Michael Scharf listed in his interesting email here - I see you were not in cc:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/37SUp8JSE_tJXzKM6-tDcOhJaeA/   - but I don’t think that these *always* apply, under all conditions…  surely there must be ways around them, at least in datacenters)

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email