IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Sat, 18 July 2020 18:36 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 BC30A3A0BD5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 DbxzfEfN7ryb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-15.smtp.github.com (out-15.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A9D3A0BD3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A8C261843 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595097388; bh=WfPfPyq7uPundtpYhPSPoy14xdaGca78rRybeuNmH14=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AkAkTZ1h1923A52sXJPSkr9a3SClAbZu8hDo3Z+mf6gpbn2lj26JgRBeEUsAOCNKd Bn2tVeayKL4rNlydn6nKuPbTPuiJ/8ceA2aGAG2NTl5m3GvoqQeFlvWI/LT1Qumuy5 vrvYUvKcQQJ98MrLGrBNRgdvgRz6UYK+zmMJu7vA=
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:36:27 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5PQP6JOVJWD7WFPLN5D4RCXEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/660523251@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f13412b8733d_1db73fbfa10cd960142919d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/TwqA_5YOfS145amrOUAlY01_6Qw>
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, 18 Jul 2020 18:36:30 -0000

@janaiyengar we'll have to run experiments to confirm that. Since kMinimumWindow is defined as 10 packets, that might be enough for most requests. If it doesn't turn out to be enough, we may need to change the limit to `max(kMinimumWindow, amplification_factor * num_packets_received_on_unvalidated_path)` - but we'll collect data before we propose a change like that

-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-660523251

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email