Re: Multi-path QUIC Extension Experiments

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

When "when we will see bad results" I think that returning to single path
QUIC should be OK.
Maintaining multipath may not be possible all the time, as we are talking
about transmission over very different technologies.

Behcet
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:30 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Yunfei, Yanmei, Qing and their colleagues are pointing a very important
> issue in multipath protocol design: in some cases, using multiple paths
> results in worse quality than using a single path. It is rather
> important to delineate exactly how that happens, and to understand why
> cooperation between transport and application is required to solve the
> issue.
>
> For simplification, let's assume a basic "equal cost multipath"
> scenario, in which the transport splits the traffic between two paths of
> equal delay and equal capacity. When both paths are working well, data
> arrives twice faster than if a single path was used, and everyone is
> happy. But of course, things do not keep working well all the time,
> which is when we will see bad results. For example:
>
> * if one path experiences packet losses and the other does not, some
> packets sent on the lossy path will have to be transmitted again. This
> will cause delays, and may well cause "head of line blocking".
>
> * if one path suddenly slows down, maybe because of radio issues, it
> will take some time for congestion control algorithms to detect the drop
> in capacity. Queues will build up during that time, which again may well
> cause HoB.
>
> One extreme solution is to always send copies of the data on both paths,
> and let the application use whichever copy arrives first. That works,
> but at the cost of massive overhead. We don't want to incur that
> overhead all the time. I like the suggestion of using application state
> to drive when the transport should use this kind of redundancy, and when
> it should not.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
> On 7/18/2021 2:51 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > It sounds like this problem is not inherent to single-connection
> multi-path, but will be present in any multi-path implementation, including
> multiple-tcp-connections used with application-layer muxing.
> > If this is correct, then it isn’t really a ‘QUIC problem, but rather an
> implementation/scheduling/CC problem.
> > That isn’t saying that it isn’t interesting or important to solve, but
> rather that the protocol itself need not change to solve the problem for
> generic-QUIC transport.
> >
> > H3, OTOH, may suffer from this at L7+ proxies without some changes to
> QUIC or H3, but that is a much longer conversation that doesn’t require
> multi-path to happen.
> >
> > -=R
> >
> > From: Yunfei Ma <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 1:17 AM
> > To: Charles 'Buck' Krasic <[e-mail]>, Mirja Kuehlewind <
> [e-mail]>, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "matt.joras" <[e-mail]>, 李振宇 <[e-mail]>,
> Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>, Yanmei Liu <
> [e-mail]>, "lucaspardue.24.7" <
> [e-mail]>, quic <[e-mail]>, Qing An <
> [e-mail]>, Yunfei Ma <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: Multi-path QUIC Extension Experiments
> >
> > Hi Charles, Roberto, and Mirja:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your questions. As all three of you are curious about
> the definition of MP-HoL, I am putting my answer into one reply.
> >
> > Short answer: the MP-HoL is not because of flow control, but rather, it
> is related to the nature of path heterogeneity. In other words, MP-HoL can
> happen when flow control limit is not reached (as pointed out by Charles,
> you can set a large limit on the client side).
> >
> > More specifically, when you want to send out packets on different paths
> at the same time, there is a scheduler to decide how to split your packets
> and put them on different paths. However, in mobile networks, the network
> paths could have very different path delays. MP-HoL blocking arises when
> the packets sent earlier at the slow path arrive later than the packets
> sent later at the fast path, causing out-of-order arrival. As a
> consequence, the out-of-order packets are not eligible to be submitted to
> applications, so the fast path has to wait.
> >
> > For example, say we want to send out two packets that belong to the same
> video frame with a min-RTT scheduler, which is default in MPTCP. For each
> packet, the scheduler selects a path for that packet to transmit. The
> selection has two criterias: (1) the path's congestion window is not full
> and (2) the path selected has a smaller RTT than the other. If somehow, at
> the moment of transmitting, the fast path's cwnd is full (some traffic has
> been sent before), the first packet is then put on the slow path by the
> scheduler. Later, an ACK is received and the fast path becomes available,
> so the scheduler puts the second packet on the fast path. As a result,
> there is an out-of-order arrival.
> >
> > What makes the problem even more difficult is that in mobile networks,
> the RTTs can change quickly, which makes accurate prediction very
> difficult. Worst case is that when the scheduler thinks it is using the
> fast path, it is actually using the slow path instead. As you can see, in
> order to make multi-path transport efficient, it is important to solve this
> problem and that's what we are doing in this project .
> >
> > I hope I have answered your questions. If not, please let me know.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Yunfei
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:51 PM Charles 'Buck' Krasic <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > "don't overcommit" includes the common practice of setting very large
> limits on the client side, where in aggregate the case of server being flow
> control limited is effectively non-existent.
> >
> > I am curious to hear clarification of the precise definition of MP-HoL
> blocking here.  is it not flow control, but rather path aliasing where
> distinct paths are actually sharing some physical link(s)?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:13 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > I too am curious!
> > There are only two ways to handle flow control—overcommit, or don’t
> overcommit.
> >
> > The “don’t overcommit” choice leads to blocking, since any of that
> resource allocated to one path can’t be used by the other.
> > The “overcommit” choice either leads to OOM, or throwing out some
> successfully transmitted and received data.
> >
> > Underlying this is a fun question: Which inefficiency is worse? Not
> using resources that should be used (i.e. from choosing to not overcommit),
> or sometimes redundantly using a resource (from choosing to overcommit)?
> > I’m curious too about what implementation strategies we end up doing in
> general around this, and.. if enough implementations are choosing
> overcommit, if we need some different protocol mechanisms to bound the
> redundancy?
> > -=R
> >
> > From: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on
> behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Date: Friday, July 16, 2021 at 6:15 AM
> > To: "Ma, Yunfei" <yunfei.ma<http://yunfei.ma>=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> Robin MARX <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> Yanmei Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Cc: "matt.joras" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 李振宇 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian Huitema <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "lucaspardue.24.7" <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, quic <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Qing An <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Subject: Re: Multi-path QUIC Extension Experiments
> >
> > Hi Yunfei,
> >
> > thanks as well for you sharing your results! Can you explain even a bit
> more what you mean by MP-HoL Blocking? Is this because of the flow control
> limits? If so wouldn’t it make sense to reserve a certain “space” for each
> path?
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > From: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on
> behalf of "Ma, Yunfei" <yunfei.ma<http://yunfei.ma>=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Date: Thursday, 15. July 2021 at 04:18
> > To: Robin MARX <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> Yanmei Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Cc: "matt.joras" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 李振宇 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian Huitema <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "lucaspardue.24.7" <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, quic <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Qing An <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Multi-path QUIC Extension Experiments
> >
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > Thanks so much for your questions!
> >
> > First, the head of line blocking discussed here is called multi-path
> head-of-line blocking or MP-HoL blocking, and its root cause is quite
> different from the stream HoL blocking usually discussed in QUICv1. The
> MP-HoL blocking happens when one path blocks the other path, not when one
> stream blocks the other stream. Please note that we indeed use multiple
> streams, for example, different video requests are carried in different
> QUIC streams. QUIC’s stream multiplexing ability and its benefits still
> hold in this scenario.
> >
> > Second, regarding packet scheduling mode, right now, in our Taobao A/B
> test, we transmit packets on multiple paths simultaneously. However, you
> can definitely use traffic switching only and choose to switch when one
> path could not meet your bandwidth requirement. Basically, if you use
> multiple paths simultaneously, you get the most elasticity from a resource
> pooling perspective. It really comes down on what your application needs.
> We will also update the packet scheduling section soon in a newer version
> of the draft, in which we plan to include more discussions on the packet
> scheduling policy.
> >
> > Third, regarding the benefits of more bandwith versus the "downsides".
> Whether you want more bandwidth depends on your application. For videos,
> yes, more bandwidth is extremely helpful in improving the long tail QoE,
> which is an important target for Taobao. We find multi-path QUIC helps us
> improve two important metrics, rebuffer rate and video start-up delays. In
> the past, if you work on multi-path scheduling that does not collaborate
> close enough with applications such as MPTCP, the MP-HoL blocking becomes
> the downside that cripples the performance. However, the user space nature
> of QUIC provides us the opportunity to solve this problem, so now our
> conclusion is that you can enjoy the benefits of more bandwidth and more
> reliable connectivity from multi-path without much of the “downsides”.
> >
> > I hope my answer is helpful, but feel free to let me know if you have
> any additional comments.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Yunfei
> >
> > from Alimail macOS<
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=7cc82aa7-2353138a-7cc86a3c-8692dc8284cb-e08a325a5c75cf95&q=1&e=de295b4f-9105-4e32-980f-779c711eaa62&u=https://mail.alibaba-inc.com/
> >
> > ------------------Original Mail ------------------
> > Sender:Robin MARX <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> >>
> > Send Date:Wed Jul 14 07:39:37 2021
> > Recipients:Yanmei Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> > CC:quic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ma, Yunfei <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian
> Huitema <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Qing An <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 李振宇 <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, matt.joras <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, lucaspardue.24.7 <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Subject:Re: Multi-path QUIC Extension Experiments
> > Hello Yanmei,
> >
> > Thanks for the additional results on an interesting topic. I'm looking
> forward to reading the SIGCOMM paper.
> >
> > I was a bit surprised to (apparently) see HOL blocking mentioned as a
> major issue, as that's one of the things QUIC aims to be better at than TCP.
> > It's a bit difficult to understand from the slides, but it seems like
> you're sending packets for a single stream (Stream ID 1 in the diagrams) on
> both the slow and fast path, which would indeed induce HOL blocking.
> > Consequently, I was wondering what the practical reasons are for you to
> multiplex packets for a single stream over multiple paths, as opposed to
> for example attaching a single stream to a single path (say: high priority
> streams use the fast path for all their packets).
> >
> > I see this mentioned a bit in the draft under "packet scheduling", where
> it talks about switching paths once the cwnd is full for one. That indeed
> leads to the behaviour seen in the slides, but that's my question: why
> would you take those approaches then?
> > Are there so many cases where the additional "bandwidth" from using
> multiple path's cwnd for a single stream outweigh the downsides of HOL
> blocking? Relatedly: what are the packet loss rates you've observed on real
> networks?
> > Have you experimented with e.g., tying streams to paths more closely?
> Does that work better or worse? Why?
> >
> > I'm mainly wondering how these tradeoffs evolve depending on the type of
> paths available and if it's possible to make a model to drive this logic.
> > I assume there is much existing work on this for MPTCP, but I also
> assume some of that changes due to QUIC's independent streams / stream
> prioritization flexibility.
> >
> > Thank you in advance and with best regards,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 at 20:48, Yanmei Liu <miaoji.lym=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We have finished some experiments about deploying multi-path quic
> extension(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-multipath-quic/)<
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-multipath-quic/)> in Alibaba
> Taobao short-form video streaming, and the experiment results are concluded
> in the slides (attached file).
> > If anyone is interested in the experimental details about multi-path
> quic, please let us know.
> > All the feedbacks and suggestions are appreciated!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Yanmei
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > dr. Robin Marx
> > Postdoc researcher - Web protocols
> > Expertise centre for Digital Media
> >
> > Cellphone [phone]
> >
> > www.uhasselt.be<
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=37557dd4-68ce44f9-37553d4f-8692dc8284cb-fe608437d16ed9d9&q=1&e=de295b4f-9105-4e32-980f-779c711eaa62&u=http://www.uhasselt.be/
> >
> > Universiteit Hasselt - Campus Diepenbeek
> > Agoralaan Gebouw D - B-3590 Diepenbeek
> > Kantoor EDM-2.05
> >
> > Error! Filename not specified.
> >
>
>