[quicwg/base-drafts] Consider dynamic hybrid between time-based and packet-based loss detection (#1986)

Matt Olson <notifications@github.com> Sat, 10 November 2018 00:27 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 C3A5D12D4EC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:27:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, 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] 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 QlH1SerJ5BrH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3321A124BE5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 16:27:43 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1541809663; bh=Omnv2rqtYJJXb+jdmYZGG3DpwkV50Kgy6cQTQ1RmSJA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=R7IgBReSAsHYr3ey87fpI3vth/qNecxdntKCCQtCUJIv6ei8ro/+6v9n7xL8Lw+I8 A5FueKqQ9B0q3pmTUx38O+t35NdiMt8K6+TbcoZTa+7vMgzw2snPogyewXmQfBMhZ0 saJ2R+rQLHUdjMxjzRVh32+16ZSgj1m+ym92pnXU=
From: Matt Olson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab295ea71e61a5ed8c5d4af1e76dc59fd60b3666f492cf0000000117fde7ff92a169ce169caef1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1986@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consider dynamic hybrid between time-based and packet-based loss detection (#1986)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5be625ffa9070_1b523f7febad45bc661b3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: maolson-msft
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/ALpFZnVmH62rhbUl58n0WkC6OcU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 00:27:48 -0000

The IETF RACK/TLP draft for TCP has a dynamic hybrid of RACK ("time-based") and dupthresh ("packet-based") recovery: dupthresh is used at first, but then turned off when any reordering is detected. The idea being that a packet-based threshold is too sensitive on networks with moderate reordering. It would be easy to adapt this to QUIC.

Along with the dynamic time-based reordering threshold that is a MAY in the QUIC spec right now iirc, this would go under the general heading of "reordering tolerance." The main dissent I've heard is that we shouldn't ship code that tolerates reordering because it might incentivize use of technologies that introduce reordering. Link bonding, for instance, can introduce such reordering supposedly, although that's a bit surprising since you could just hash tuples to NICs. Anyway, that's the narrative.


-- 
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/1986