Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08.txt

J Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin <ihameli@cnet.fi.uba.ar> Tue, 30 March 2021 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ihameli@cnet.fi.uba.ar>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0224C3A0D38 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 pa6f3ZQgO_9J for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnet.fi.uba.ar (cnet.fi.uba.ar [157.92.58.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A203A0D3E for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cnet.fi.uba.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D401140077; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:42:22 -0300 (ART)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cnet.fi.uba.ar
Received: from cnet.fi.uba.ar ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cnet.fi.uba.ar [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kV3WxLzI622D; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:42:16 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.7] (unknown [181.46.139.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cnet.fi.uba.ar (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EB1B140068; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:42:16 -0300 (ART)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: J Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin <ihameli@cnet.fi.uba.ar>
In-Reply-To: <FRYP281MB01127BBC2A94F40783044DFE9C7D9@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:42:01 -0300
Cc: magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBCA9CEF-18CF-41D9-BBC8-AC3581128239@cnet.fi.uba.ar>
References: <161705348048.17388.9380614999436689902@ietfa.amsl.com> <HE1PR0702MB3772E8BA15BFF01315E139A8957D9@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <FRYP281MB01127BBC2A94F40783044DFE9C7D9@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/vzWZYvMwbLEPe6M5dkB21Y9QJTM>
Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08.txt
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:42:39 -0000

Hi Rüdiger,

There is a family of different congestion avoidance algorithms, but the goal is to achieve the maximum throughput. Nevertheless, it is clear that some part of the network along the path from sender and server is congested; any of these algorithms will start to work. In other words, you have to put your server close enough to your link under measurement. The popular M-Lab uses at least three TCP flows to determine the rate as a way to trying to avoid this kind of problem, but in that case, servers are far away. 
Among the possible algorithms to maximize the uses vs. congestion in a short time, there is BBR used by QUIC (if I remember well):

 http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/networking/networking2018/2B1-1570416152.pdf
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140366419303470?casa_token=ggSPL6OXQH0AAAAA:zXNHOPgQeydZo3XBJRbeAApYrGQ7iZPocVZHCu11P19Hs_KdwRO9sMEse-HhKgiRGHsJeR4_MK0

I hope this answer the question and give a better understanding, cheers,


	Ignacio


_______________________________________________________________

Dr. Ing. José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
CONICET and Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Buenos Aires
Av. Paseo Colón 850 - C1063ACV - Buenos Aires - Argentina
+54 (11) 5285 0716 / 5285 0705
e-mail: ihameli@cnet.fi.uba.ar
web: http://cnet.fi.uba.ar/ignacio.alvarez-hamelin/
_______________________________________________________________



> On 30 Mar 2021, at 07:48, <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> [MW] To accurately measure the capacity of the path the load algorithm strive to load the path so that the one way latency increases to indicate that the bottleneck buffer is sufficiently filled to achieve high utility. This load is not intended to be fair against other applications, it is intended to provide as accurate measurement as possible, potentially pushing other applications out of the way.
> 
> [RG] The sender rate adaption mechanism operates by congestion feedback, as do many standard transport protocols. The purpose of the algorithm is not to determine, whether a queue or a policer burst size "is sufficiently filled to achieve high utility", the purpose is to accurately determine the access speed which can be reached without queue-build up and/or packet loss. After feedback indicating a sender rate which has caused congestion has been received, the sender rate is adapted until the maximum access speed not causing congestion is determined. To decide on a sender rate fulfilling this this criterium, a sender rate causing a congestion which can be accurately identified as congestion by a measurement system is required. If you are aware of a method reaching this goal without causing limited congestion, please share.
> 
> [RG] I don't understand whether your feedback is focused on improvements of parametrization or on the basic behaviour of the algorithm. The algorithm is not designed to be unfair.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ruediger
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----which
> Von: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Magnus Westerlund
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. März 2021 10:54
> An: ippm@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have reviewed the latest versions changes and have some comments.
> 
> Section 8.1
> 
>   If no status feedback messages arrive at the sender for the interval	
>   greater than the Lost Status Backoff timeout = w*FT, beginning when	
>   the last message (of any type) was successfully received at the  sender:
> 
> "w" is used here and paragraphs below. But it is not really defined. Based on what is written below it is an algorithm constant, so maybe it should be given a name. 
> 
> So the backoff happens after w*FT. And I agree that with a regular feedback interval that will be working independent of RTT, starting the time when the first feedback has been received. What I thin this paragraph could be clearer on is that w*FT need to be considered in relation to the one-way delay jitter. And the most likely cause here is buffer depth in the bottleneck. It must also be related to upper delay threshold. What occurs if upper delay threshold is higher than w*FT? Is there a potential that a step increases is sufficient to push the buffer occupancy more than w*FT longer, i.e. causing the feedback to be delayed sufficient so that it triggers the lost feedback rather than the upper threshold? I haven't calculated what traffic increases that are possible and if that excess traffic can cause this to happen without additional cross traffic over bottleneck. I would assume this is fine to happen in the initial fast ramp-up, but it should not really happen in the regular ramp-up case.
> 
>   The RECOMMENDED initial value for w is 3, taking Round Trip Time	
>   (RTT) less than FT into account.  A test with RTT longer than FT is a
> 
>   valid reason to increase the initial value of w appropriately.	
>   Variable w SHALL be incremented by 1 whenever the Lost Status Backoff
> 
>   timeout is exceeded.  So with FT = 50ms, a status feedback message	
>   loss would be declared at 150ms following a successful message, again
> 
>   at 50ms after that (200ms total), and so on.
> 
> 
> I still think that Section 8 could be more explicit about the goal of the load algorithm. 
> 
> To accurately measure the capacity of the path the load algorithm strive to load the path so that the one way latency increases to indicate that the bottleneck buffer is sufficiently filled to achieve high utility. This load is not intended to be fair against other applications, it is intended to provide as accurate measurement as possible, potentially pushing other applications out of the way.
> 
> The goal of being explicit about this is so that there is no doubt to anyone what this algorithm does, and that it is not a generic congestion control algorithm.  So Section 14.1 discuss this, but I think the document can be more honest here and state it explicitly in Section 8.
> 
> Now, I am no longer an AD, but I don't have a problem with a limited scope algorithm that just is open with its intention of being unfair. I think having an algorithm that people may copy without understanding what it does is more a problem. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: I-D-Announce <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of 
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: den 29 mars 2021 23:31
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: ippm@ietf.org
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08.txt
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the 
>> IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Metrics and Methods for One-way IP Capacity
>>        Authors         : Al Morton
>>                          Ruediger Geib
>>                          Len Ciavattone
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08.txt
>> 	Pages           : 37
>> 	Date            : 2021-03-29
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   This memo revisits the problem of Network Capacity metrics first
>>   examined in RFC 5136.  The memo specifies a more practical Maximum
>>   IP-layer Capacity metric definition catering for measurement
>>   purposes, and outlines the corresponding methods of measurement.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-metho
>> d/
>> 
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-08
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-
>> method-08
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-meth
>> od-
>> 08
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm