IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] kInitialRtt of 100 msec is too aggressive (#2184)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 December 2018 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 21F85130E2E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 mjiOzpw5x7Lc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o10.sgmail.github.com (o10.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69B9E129C6A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:06:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=kfr0mS/23wZAEX9IKRbXo/YzBcs=; b=v6ohL1Zieoaf7wkY +a2mXAz+EjYQc4b56qyz2DswwiDn7tZLKpyyg/YEMQ1gV+X9rQwBv+PFDKr511el 3HxE7mzWdmh1atwCUmOeksVwN5kmSzIdHWq1ZacS3rsYkC0bvMMuaV90JOrAzJBH z5/iDgahZD36I9vxyEnClQw0Exw=
Received: by filter0412p1iad2.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0412p1iad2-29915-5C177534-3 2018-12-17 10:06:44.0548454 +0000 UTC m=+301224.186362962
Received: from github-lowworker-3c598a3.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.43]) by ismtpd0030p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id eewv5iSDQKieEcGOSjrvfw for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:06:44.085 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-3c598a3.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DC4A80246 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:06:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:06:44 +0000
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abbd24ab90c2d8a65ea9b0012ab0de5cf096ed93fa92cf00000001182f373492a169ce174df843@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2184/447789198@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2184@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2184@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] kInitialRtt of 100 msec is too aggressive (#2184)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c17753410d62_2ecc3fcf73cd45c4171245"; 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
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1Ld9smeMbKDeyAOXWAmjY8AuwhWiYQqQl+aH oPIdsv/inLIq9BQkDEfi2ql4yo+CybQKBQsRI0PqovHwKTtHjNzrRsJASk2sYH7XssJUZH8vuJCf4u X3nemQ1UeckRsfFVp/UukTRUTb6UmAOSKX/2XS5+7cINNGFPLMKJb5JJQg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/iL7T6qvJ_WaotAdRKTO0BrCp3JM>
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: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:06:47 -0000

I don't think Ryans estimates are particularly convincing except to ensure that QUIC also works well for that case. Any non-Google user couldn't care less about how many data centers Google use to distribute queries when deploying a QUIC application. You need to ensure QUIC works optimally well in the sub 40ms range, but the outliers needs to handled, as @huitema points out.

One option is to retransmit Initial packets 4 times in fixed intervals of 80 ms, or larger if bandwidth is expensive until at least one packet has been received by peer. The 4x ensures that one packet gets through event at loss rates up to 75% and in the typical cases at most one or two packets are sent. If there is no response after the 4th packet, the burst is repeated at increasingly larger intervals.

-- 
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/2184#issuecomment-447789198

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email