Re: Reminder: Video Ingest over QUIC Side Meeting Friday 7/30 18:00 UTC

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Why would we need a signal here? This applies to all traffic, be it TCP
QUIC or anything else. Firmwares introducing latency to reorder packets was
a reaction to bad implementations of TCP from a long time ago that have
been fixed in systems that care about performance. In today's world, L2 is
better off delivering any and all packets in the order they arrive instead
of introducing buffer bloat.

David

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:24 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The ideal would be to have public bits that were intended to be
> interpreted by (as you say, visible to) those layers so any L2 could
> adapted appropriately without reinventing the wheel.
> It isn’t just the local radio firmware that one needs to worry about—it is
> also the basestation(s) that may be “helping”.
>
> Separately, but also important, is being able to get signals from the
> application about what tradeoffs should be at the network. I believe that
> this dovetails into many of the multipath issues, btw.
>
> A couple potentially interesting params are:
>
>   A bit to say please don’t HoL block
>   Some kind of mechanism(s) to bound retries (e.g. “don’t retry bit”, but
> that is obviously not as expressive as throw out packet older than X
> microseconds)
>
>
> -=R
>
>
>
> *From: *QUIC <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ian Swett <ianswett=
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 12:42 PM
> *To: *"Das, Dibakar" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Alan Frindell <afrind=[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Kirill Pugin <[e-mail]
> >
> *Subject: *Re: Reminder: Video Ingest over QUIC Side Meeting Friday 7/30
> 18:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I can't answer for Alan, but my belief is yes.  Client wifi stacks
> sometimes also do some reordering(and introduce the corresponding latency),
> so if we could design an indication that in-order delivery has no value, it
> could be fairly widely applicable.
>
>
>
> That being said, I don't know what the right mechanism is?  Would we need
> something visible to a network or can we get away with a socket option that
> propagates to the local 5G network or Wifi firmware when possible?
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 3:15 PM Das, Dibakar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kirill, Alan,
>
>
>
> I could not attend the call this week and wont be able to attend this side
> meeting either.
>
>
>
> But I had a general question about the performance of all such QUIC based
> protocols over wireless. Typically, the 5G and WiFI MAC layers deliver
> frames in-order which sort of recreates the HOL blocking problem at lower
> layers. I would expect this to in turn prevent the QUIC protocol to achieve
> its full performance gains at least in some congested network scenarios.
> Considering that in-order delivery is made optional in 5G PDCP, I was
> wondering if there could be a value to have some signaling defined in the
> QUIC (or RUSH ?) protocol that would allow lower layers to make better
> decision about whether to enable/disable in-order delivery for certain
> streams.
>
>
>
> I apologize in advance if this is not the right venue to ask questions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dibakar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* QUIC <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Alan Frindell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 28, 2021 8:42 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; QUIC WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Kirill Pugin <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Reminder: Video Ingest over QUIC Side Meeting Friday 7/30
> 18:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Video Ingest over QUIC Side Meeting Friday 7/30 18:00 UTC / 11 Pacific
>
>
>
> Link to draft agenda and video conference details:
> https://github.com/afrind/draft-rush/blob/main/meeting-materials/agenda.2021.07.03.md
>
>
>
> -Alan
>
>