MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7A111AD3-3E4C-43D1-999A-F383428103AC@ifi.uio.no>
References: <7A111AD3-3E4C-43D1-999A-F383428103AC@ifi.uio.no>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:11:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO249yfA_h3tksS_K204ZTuYx1NiUXjf2HD47Jb2y6VWcn4NSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/EaobRp2WV5_S3SbYODrbD2Rj9Rw>
Cc: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>, iccrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] LISA - Linked Slow-Start for MPTCP => ICCRG
Precedence: list

Hello,
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
flows.
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.
--
Yoshi

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> 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 co=
nservative behavior also doesn't hurt (actually, sometimes it's a benefit) =
when they do *not* share a bottleneck. After all, slow-start is very aggres=
sive anyway - is it really so important for the 2nd, 3rd... subflow of MPTC=
P to be  *that* aggressive?
>
> We presented it to MPTCP at the last IETF, and in Yokohama.
> There's a draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barik-mptcp-lisa-01
> and a page with slides, a published paper with results, and code:  http:/=
/heim.ifi.uio.no/runabk/lisa/
>
> 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 did=
n't get many comments!
>
> Cheers,
> Michael (with Runa & Simone)
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp