Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 07:01 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 1286C12013E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 7xHEbSSo0B-e for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CB3A12013D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:01:06 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1565074866; bh=+Kbv0Xe0sZYEUijuE3hAuBl1O11r74ixOmW1DEMWskg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=j0ePoVLDHGWancANY8Zn/mr6zdAoPdORwbDg4UkjV94T5p3K3C1fh7gDZiBotladL u38OE3aGyDwo5Hs9KlwyHzdi96ALLr3dLVG6vOBbq7dE4p46aEouIUy2x89MpzJX+C LMPMKIVkE7QySMAsY0I/mcuocU9e6PPdnhlYvYeY=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZUB4QDOA5H77742NV3KZMDFEVBNHHBYY33OM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952/review/271148430@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4925b2c0c45_58003fb04bccd9641435e4"; 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/iLBMAyr9lnWU3bJVaU5MBb9WBPI>
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 07:01:11 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -601,7 +601,9 @@ removed from bytes in flight when the Initial and Handshake keys are discarded.
 When a PTO timer expires, a sender MUST send at least one ack-eliciting packet
 as a probe, unless there is no data available to send.  An endpoint MAY send up
 to two full-sized datagrams containing ack-eliciting packets, to avoid an
-expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram.
+expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram.  When only
+sending a single packet on PTO, senders can skip a packet number to elicit a
+faster acknowledgement.
 

So if both endpoints skip every second packet number early in the connection, in order to aggressively detect optimistic ACK's, would that lead to an ACK flood?

-- 
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/2952#discussion_r310907459