Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Pacing when under-utilizing the Congestion Window (#2686)

ianswett <> Fri, 10 May 2019 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909FC12022E for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.465
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.465 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJHiItUJeQ9t for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAF8F1201DE for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:08:37 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1557482917; bh=kcslfBXYogL4m13z4qGB5WgvxPXcax9lvpwAiWXvE30=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=veVlcic4fAs/iYzzy7DmvPoCtrJLULTeqUw+VlWUZlIBUUoBMvOC8tBLv2yNtU9UA LTh9z06WNFVruxYvHvzOYq3sZGu4TaUUWeM27Q5G75TegnMROZKsxBc+GYTn8B8+Hg 2/D9DP3XvwD2cGW5tdaySUOGtqOITKCLSGQxyfqo=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2686/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Pacing when under-utilizing the Congestion Window (#2686)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd54da5a61b8_66f3f98f1ecd96013813b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 10:08:46 -0000

Linux pacing has an initial burst of 10 packets, followed by pacing, so this is intended to allow for that style of sending.  In which case, I think "more than" is the right term?

I think the evidence you have in mind is some data presented early on that pacing + IW32 had lower losses than no pacing and IW10?  That gap largely is driven by the large initial burst out of quiescence without pacing, which would be mitigated by sending a 10 packet burst and pacing the rest(or doing some form of slow start after idle).

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: