[quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Sat, 30 March 2019 20:41 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB19120286 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4kTpvw7ObHg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9111120277 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:40:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1553978458; bh=ZHJFrb+H7MDNRo8rWkZQRQZrsuoXyXg8U1GZBtsqfX8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jRgpvRCPdm7oBmtzXeFUdTujMMxj7R+PlO76cIfznznn9LveoJ01lJzTNdcu86LJN 2vSBRU1fqqiUrRZFnfcgcsGTJZMk8pO+GWzxjxLBk/7OUstmiatVFScuG3gMiTIaqS ZY3QUUZG31cky8iWY5dGMPoPAeURZF0nGmmoAkgY=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abc91dc1982799ff388c4458d9a11901d6ae7b2f9f92cf0000000118b7965a92a169ce19787a10@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2568@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9fd45ac37b9_5ef53fab22cd45bc8219d4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/l7LrV7rNwPp5dmMbFT82eNjAvZY>
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, 30 Mar 2019 20:41:03 -0000

The RTT estimator currently does not use RTT samples if the largest_acked is not ack-eliciting. This can lead to the endpoint missing RTT samples unnecessarily, in two ways.

First, checking only for the largest_acked to be ack-eliciting means that we ignore other newly acked packets that were ack-eliciting. The peer is expected to send an ack within max_ack_delay if it has received any ack-eliciting packets, not just the largest acked one. This is probematic if the connection has a pattern that results in more non-ack-eliciting packets being the largest_acked. I propose that we change the condition for a valid RTT sample to be if _any_ newly acked is ack-eliciting (in addition to the ACK frame carrying a new largest_acked).

Second, non-ack-eliciting packets are a perfectly fine source of RTT samples, with the caveat that ack_delay might be larger than max_ack_delay; a receiver that has only received non-ack-eliciting packets might delay acknowledging these packets much longer than otherwise. I propose that we don't drop all RTT samples associated with non-ack-eliciting packets, but only those with unusable ack_delay. Basically, I propose that we use the RTT sample if ack_delay < max_ack_delay.

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