IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] On-path calculation of loss and congestion (#632)

Brian Trammell <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 November 2017 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 A04B212ECA9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:58:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 zpZqJ67ce87d for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:58:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o4.sgmail.github.com (o4.sgmail.github.com [192.254.112.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78BF612ECA3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:58:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=wKwggOJS4RuIZaqcNe4iIlJL9t0=; b=ujxr5E/TeWySReMx 2NOLxle+Bn4J+GEwcV1xzqFb8U7gn+7CYQOckT6bx4FcgsJ29qC5JLk/nWBVktcV d7eCG9mEt3FxoZ2Y+sHqF3+2lWoXAI5zuSiMS53RzJzr3SPtEVvuCf21bHGQo8rY eDDp8XSFjnpy3TjcMejmm4GcZbw=
Received: by filter0534p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0534p1mdw1-21469-5A04189D-2 2017-11-09 08:58:05.514170854 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0008p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id ig1F3mS7TS2lNx3A7REUDQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:58:05.490 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:58:05 +0000
From: Brian Trammell <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe032ff0133cdd941a4bd9b08d07d866db122ad9792cf00000001161bda9d92a169ce0e0f95f5@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/632/343089066@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/632@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/632@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] On-path calculation of loss and congestion (#632)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5a04189d5ab76_56093fba7f3e0f3446653a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: britram
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
tracking:
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak29c13u4XlwZezZd2chZhFKvfH/x3OIDyb2ip hRCVsud16FlT1lIGol3+V2X4TYM1Jb1N1hPYp/G3R7H0ijQeoXWMezRxha+4RqOn3TS2Oea9U/YH8h BuCJ46uuU6w13kcdyWK2dsMbW46rCCLbZg8PoXLr1UUxCcbJa3CKMZcoTN/VmB/rBXTqP87WB+K6JP A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/wNUTODicGBBArWOlpcArfSvKhOs>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Nov 2017 08:58:08 -0000

After discussion in the RTT DT, I agree less with Lars here than I thought I did. For steady-state (large flow, "infinite" application demand) traffic, RTT is sufficient (since RTT gives you bandwidth per RTT gives you effective window size gives you loss/congestion reaction indication). However, for application-limited traffic (effectively anything machine-to-machine, logging and control, ABR media, CBR media, etc.) measuring RTT is difficult, and loss is a better indicator of application-visible performance problems.

-- 
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/632#issuecomment-343089066

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status