Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 May 2019 08:05 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 9C86612010D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 MjNiJ1aHRkpU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25B9C12012B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 01:04:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558080296; bh=zu0+IXSP+smgHbB44JqbEL+KULaiuwa3P7JN4GKUHFY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=p4mCWKvG35mI/OIQD9fNFua4oYny6G8JKvUMlRuT9OzB41Hy3shXZObPMANKnU4nf 0ZhyLLkc208opq4+lVi4psbT2RP6W09EQVaHnucijdZtfmMknXRILPZvejUWftN9c/ BDhQrb7W01HCg3OtUHxqMNFB/4CxHp7HmnWEm1RU=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6KMJEOQ7RUVDPMJC525OO2PEVBNHHBUUHC6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675/review/238786824@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cde6b27dbb06_6a353fd581acd96013315b"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/FjntEnmUWcNA4c_Zf4JWgmNn528>
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: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:05:01 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -848,9 +850,10 @@ and not fully utilize the congestion window due to this delay. A sender
 should not consider itself application limited if it would have fully
 utilized the congestion window without pacing delay.
 
-Bursting more than an intial window's worth of data into the network might
-cause short-term congestion and losses. Implemementations SHOULD either use
-pacing or reduce their congestion window to limit such bursts.
+Sending multiple packets into the network without any delay between them
+creates a burst of load that might cause short-term congestion and losses.

If not out of quiescence, an IW burst would probably be bad. You could just wait a millisecond or two and repeat in badly designed pacing logic.

-- 
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/pull/2675#discussion_r285016666