IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Mon, 27 November 2017 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C851292AE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:02:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ohHmpmpaDgZM for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22C0D1242F5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp06.mail2web.com ([168.144.250.232]) by mx6.antispamcloud.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1eJNjn-0005MU-5R for quic@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:02:40 +0100
Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp06.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1eJNjh-0002Sh-PE for quic@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:02:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 17137 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2017 18:02:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.56.42.196]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <quic@ietf.org>; 27 Nov 2017 18:02:28 -0000
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
References: <AFEE7BBA-E5DC-4064-AA19-33921EAF4C01@mnot.net> <21B07D8C-C4A1-4321-9E43-61C9DB9DC4CA@trammell.ch> <fd09b775-4c0e-9d99-e49c-421212f2e5e4@cs.tcd.ie> <F4F7A438-F30F-406B-9971-DA05DA458B44@netapp.com> <C8DDB9E3-C8F9-49CB-8C6D-E381C00AC02D@trammell.ch> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4904F2FD@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAGD1bZbYjB96nc1ud3xmSm8g6jHhPYpeT=iWWQiZxRzzyVvdRw@mail.gmail.com> <07ef04d5-b211-e605-9f66-fe0ecefa5425@zinks.de> <989A02DE-F8CE-4A50-A2F3-E595B5D4931D@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <DB4PR07MB348CAF067401CD277485464C2250@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <74e1c7bd-bd09-3285-db25-db04fe530cbc@zinks.de> <34BF55EB-8B3E-453C-BAFE-8048B4B94FC5@huitema.net> <54e419d4-e4c0-2e9e-93ab-6ff7750e483a@zinks.de>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Message-ID: <bfdad81b-7a16-c779-6281-58c60d491033@huitema.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:02:27 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54e419d4-e4c0-2e9e-93ab-6ff7750e483a@zinks.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
X-Originating-IP: 168.144.250.232
X-AntiSpamCloud-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-AntiSpamCloud-Username: 168.144.250.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=168.144.250.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-AntiSpamCloud-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-AntiSpamCloud-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.36)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5ubWwQ2pWfMpO88DUbgSUF4Xv9krsgRhBn0ayn6qsUc7A2kcKDr1fzRm ksYYe0sWHrgNzB/4Jkrw1eDLcif59ftE11/PCFSx1UWGMEEU5QN+B98yDTitFWvbHwz9vKZpm2Ea bzmM/1VynIZUVImbQiuZ3JKVmi72ocgY5kMQSjs7Pk8VxOtUn7O9m8cCuN8HIa1B2N+xwNIm4bky rJMaAA8yXDZ4EHnDt87IyrZAC2/gfn4eyCwIWdDDlFG98+9qd+BFwYDEPnet1tXHsknHYhhwbzpt P1hS4Kj7E/EWE1j8sESBnZ29929fqpFFzBN0ceyPnEGyyfS0ggcDdodDMKpYg9ruAKOoPnwmy4wG 8XtJqWVYNxS4myu1gxnHJBnmumz49PzUWhdE3zEeQF2k5bdHrh2h0Pu50H7NzHw6NK3VYL8jvyeW A9EsRvV6CqjePBKOhcObZXWnkEw+6F9CGyYW9UNFgzCqKDXesOntN1zD9IUJ5y4fZBwzmfWaECTh P09/1ofiVSCviHIcZr6c+k7GvVLPSj+Hlyh2mculO/W8NktFVcl6hrIDm43UklXgo0rGkb5OztVl OoF8rUUHwR1JLObs/ksVBOHvEAgSr8kATyzYT8K6rd4RA3UMT6Em/UONoJfh+XjGSeeT90H/uIF4 3e4BaCuF1nhDkrEU4J+LSp9pt+SCE2Wdi6aIMChKbmbjO41FyBEqIaDudcVplPEfgkCmu0AbpCDt lYGBUhlW/a7J4lI9dq2HBFg+iT3zKvfFcHV2tQAVqGdj/zM7G/H0fgN5y0tqqfuQuS1mj2Wr5ft9 Iz0WDtXlRni5HCCJM9Qvlo9UV7vdWttsewtXKowaEO652uo+6xHVEn43gl09gN9PtOEBx/RKpFEr HkJ0VfjEzm1SsR8v3aJbN/NZfa/pGyl0Yc/hSh4fhbFqiL7w
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine5.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/L76FCIJudWpO60IVDzYhJkn8Kpw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:02:45 -0000

On 11/27/2017 9:36 AM, Roland Zink wrote:

> If QUIC makes the problem crystal clear then now seems to be a good
> time to solve or mitigate it before risking it becomes a real world
> problem.

First, let's start by agreeing that this is not a problem specific QUIC.
You could say the same about Bit Torrent, any protocol that sends video
over UDP, or any application that opens multiple TCP connection. So,
yes, there may well be a problem, but since it is not specific to QUIC
the mitigation does not have to be specific to QUIC either.

But let's not panic. Practical mitigation has started long ago, with
ISPs effectively controlling how much data can be sent through a
customer's up-link. Maybe these current mitigations are not sufficient,
but if that is the case I would expect more work on better queue
management algorithm.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email