Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO probes are sent too frequently (#3546)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 13:38 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 6FBAC3A0827 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 bo6nrCPdkJyf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24C383A07CE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356505205E3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585316318; bh=Z+ctth+mKMW+Rn4TS0kTJbbEs9wZPo1cLrL13kPJFrM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=01MZLdqlhu0HYSTGbWljPdAfqbkAIV9TA1PIdIehdD3NpjjMuUtEb7LuDaTecT/gP 7uhljx/klMTIiMn7fE8coBCVRJPRYtXC9U/jQ8nwsUaq9lwmskYT7fT13EsxJ5p2hU EeC1gb9yfmSzuLG/aNYfFa820h/M5z2w6NN23imI=
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:38:38 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYZ5JDAEMLOG32KGF54RHRN5EVBNHHCGDM7NY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546/605005519@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO probes are sent too frequently (#3546)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7e01de25bed_99d3fa15f2cd964247571"; 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/rFJ4TmfxZeBbpBTHUj84hgV2wF4>
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:38:41 -0000

There are other cases when we send ack-eliciting packets including only PINGs or other non-application data and we do want to set pto_count back to 0 when those are acknowledged.

We could specifically recommend sending non-ack-eliciting packets for the anti-deadlock packet, but then you lose an opportunity for an RTT measurement early in the connection, which is unfortunate, though not a dealbreaker.  For full-sized Initial packets, it's likely they'd never be acknowledged if they weren't ack-eliciting, because no ack-eliciting Initial packets would be sent after them.

@kazuho I believe always incrementing pto_count would be detrimental to performance, unless it's under some very narrow circumstances.

-- 
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/3546#issuecomment-605005519