IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Byte counting at Congestion avoidance (#3917)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 18:29 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 2CF943A0D49 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 SRD-TADzawY1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1483D3A0D48 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC32840EDF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598898567; bh=pC5VfL1rD5QMOEixFZMChquENR/ePz2s1lD8XboBGPw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HE8IrRNXjBfsLNVjguVz6oXuQ6rPUCoB2oWgYMGND8MxAKSUIBuL6Cd4uk2HbkJeZ etw6fi3BhKgUWODj2t7yU+UKAtmuBvAMjr2hW1Tl8Mm6duVC9DsKyUTeKkHSRAEpkY A2YBTUCGSZBI3k9a7S7XUQyzuHLK2FPu//SlcHo4=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:29:27 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2ZCJN4L7TGIGGGSI55LERIPEVBNHHCOPRYC4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917/review/478844481@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Byte counting at Congestion avoidance (#3917)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4d4187cd3f_26441964384638"; 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/yW1iUk3k8NZTusnSWZJNhYofrlg>
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:29:29 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> +      bytes_acked += acked_packet.sent_bytes
+      if (bytes_acked >= congestion_window):
+        bytes_acked -= congestion_window
+        congestion_window += max_datagram_size

Are these controlled at the bottleneck or is this uncontrolled loss on the Internet? The number of packets lost seem quite different, and I'm trying to understand why those loss numbers are so different.

-- 
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/pull/3917#discussion_r480310156

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email