Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] When the sender is using standard Reno congestion control, ack every ~2 packets (#1428)

Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 July 2018 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE1313102C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 pOjztW4_h8aV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DDEF131089 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:45:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1531878302; bh=3OW1W7UnuIuNsC10sEggGoADBDKCohvwBzAnEpnO7y0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1vv3Pnnt7uVXgiDgwe9S0NqTcQFU6L5GyIFZxnBWmpaMfHkJFd7G5yiOXJYVxSSJ5 APAvKUAO6UpjSXOsCmLvnz67ErkY4YJyqiKq+weC0K/ZFArXda9eqy6IMQnhRlz6AD gquCt15xo35V/OLElFd5ZYpdjEFjbpaBahfMQsYQ=
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab23fc750242da974e47bfa698551d3f1be5f14df192cf0000000117665d9e92a169ce13ae108c@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1428/405782031@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1428@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1428@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] When the sender is using standard Reno congestion control, ack every ~2 packets (#1428)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b4e9b9eb6e90_19fb43fa751e60f7c716e4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1KUvVuylXYfYQit5YQVfST35R2Q>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 01:45:07 -0000

I am not sure I understand the issue here. Even if the sender is using Reno, it should do appropriate byte counting without any limits (since we are requiring pacing). If this is the case why does it matter if  there is stretch ACKing? The issue is not the number of ACKs that need to be generated but that ACKs might get delayed. Any ACKing scheme should generate an immediate ACK after processing a batch of packets. We should recommend that the receiver generate an immediate ACK if it processes more than 2 packets in the batch, but that it could go slower if it is willing to live with slower congestion window growth and less RTT / congestion feedback to the sender.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1428#issuecomment-405782031