Re: [multipathtcp] LISA - Linked Slow-Start for MPTCP => ICCRG

Yoshifumi Nishida <> Tue, 15 November 2016 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7805E129464 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIUGGIy1D29x for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED941297CC for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 954CB2786EF for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:11:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: by with SMTP id p9so91000516vkd.3 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfZ0s3MampEbGbERbD4AkArI517wFuXFFxnC6b5CdX1CYWSQYpDJ6n3cyKGshfctNXgYc5dCIbdi1Cpsw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 126mr11917756vkf.164.1479222666060; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:05 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Welzl <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: multipathtcp <>,
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] LISA - Linked Slow-Start for MPTCP => ICCRG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:11:26 -0000

I've tried to ask a naive question at the meeting, but I missed the
chance due to time restriction..

If the paths don't share a bottleneck, i am guessing it might be too
conservative especially when the paths are not competed with other
I am wondering why this is slightly conservative and doesn't hurt.
Some cases should be true, but I just thought some cases are not.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Michael Welzl <> wrote:
> Dear all,
> LISA is a simple algorithm that couples MPTCP subflows in slow-start, to reduce bursts that happen when multiple sub-flows start up with a delay and all send their IW, all in SS.
> We found this effect to be generally bad (i.e., improved with LISA :-) ) when subflows do share a bottleneck, and we find that this slightly more conservative behavior also doesn't hurt (actually, sometimes it's a benefit) when they do *not* share a bottleneck. After all, slow-start is very aggressive anyway - is it really so important for the 2nd, 3rd... subflow of MPTCP to be  *that* aggressive?
> We presented it to MPTCP at the last IETF, and in Yokohama.
> There's a draft:
> and a page with slides, a published paper with results, and code:
> The way ahead, as agreed with the MPTCP chairs, is to either publish via MPTCP if their future charter will allow, or else publish this via ICCRG.
> Either way, for now, discussion of this draft should happen in the ICCRG mailing list. We authors would greatly appreciate feedback - so far, we didn't get many comments!
> Cheers,
> Michael (with Runa & Simone)
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list