IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 15:54 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 67EED1200D5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.595 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 KDwHKcTSyyE2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:22 -0800 (PST)
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 89ED61200A4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D63A8C09E6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576770861; bh=YXhIJyfCjEhug7P/TqkxtgAD8LWpZnqVulg7r6oqesw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=j/zzoLHol7FD1Bt+d8dqoZ4a/Udy+OkiUfSKCYN0MpwBIvwvIclmqocbkfKpJfanI SRk0A9bfhYoRqlGWPjpzGwsUTExKx4EmAGEUqm4mTnAJcYLUdn5KYdFhBjc8cowEPA sdQCb0HE1ROtXeeU81nIQ6kG0FXyWB28YhiFzldE=
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:21 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYKKDTZBCMIJPTQIM54BDH23EVBNHHCAHNJCY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304/567547683@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dfb9d2d8e68a_e4e3fbc50acd964565ce"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/r6ta7-oNazC57EtZQ_rTk3P1Pr4>
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: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:54:24 -0000

@janaiyengar In terms of 'how bad was 1/8RTT with Cubic', I can't find any results, only results for 1/4 RTT.  1/8RTT was an option added after 1/4RTT was tested and showed a clear regression, so possibly it was never tested with Cubic.  That was around the time BBR was being developed, so I think the focus was on BBR.

If we head in the direction of recommending a fixed fraction, I'll need to re-run those experiments with Cubic to quantify the regression.

I'll note the way Chrome implements 1/4 and 1/8RTT ACK decimation means it takes the min of max_ack_delay and the RTT fraction, so in some cases receivers will send more ACKs for a given max_ack_delay.
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/net/third_party/quiche/src/quic/core/quic_received_packet_manager.cc?sq=package:chromium&g=0&l=246

-- 
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/3304#issuecomment-567547683

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email