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

ianswett <> Thu, 19 December 2019 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EED1200D5 for <>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.595
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDwHKcTSyyE2 for <>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89ED61200A4 for <>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D63A8C09E6 for <>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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: 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.

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