Idea for packet numbers

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 26BC313157A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 03:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 ccwtlrYjMUy3 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (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 45C0A131BFC for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-71bff70000001664-ef-59707f1cd952
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.87]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.20.05732.C1F70795; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:59:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [100.94.37.66] (153.88.183.153) by smtps.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.352.0; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:59:55 +0200
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Subject: Idea for packet numbers
Message-ID: <c7941a67-6eaa-cd58-d0e2-a764478aa5b0@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:59:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms050607090406040501030803"
X-Originating-IP: [153.88.183.153]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7uK5MfUGkwc3nkhY9C7gdGD2WLPnJ FMAYxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXR0z2TveCeQ8XdTd9YGxh7bboYOTkkBEwk7i7YydTFyMUhJHCE UWLhjtesEM5GRomdCz6xdTFycIgIKEisaeAEaWATsJC4+aORDcQWBgp/W76EHcTmFbCXmPxk CROIzSKgKrHiwFqwGlGBGIlrM++wQtQISpyc+YQFxGYW6GaUOHddG8QWEtCWaGjqYIU4SEni +rzrLBMYeWchaZmFpAXCtpW4M3c3M4StLbFs4WsoW1yi6ctKVgjbWmLGr4NsELaixJTuh+wQ tqnE66MfGSFsI4l3exrZFzByrmIULU4tTspNNzLSSy3KTC4uzs/Ty0st2cQIDOSDW34b7GB8 +dzxEKMAB6MSD29zbUGkEGtiWXFl7iFGFaA5jzasvsAoxZKXn5eqJMLbAZLmTUmsrEotyo8v Ks1JLT7EKM3BoiTO67jvQoSQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBccn/w0Wcv0u3PTNr8NS/80hQ jz9KLfn9lrUHV3cu6Czl5L9YfUBb2XAn2za/ieu4nHimzbL4e+DDL8eda8ptfzu8vWe1RLTD UiyH44U504+YroPTq1IL82Ic1/SxS7EvDD/nq31f1+hsoIMIW860K/IHbk58eqCoJfFEbqxI m1SVz281gzv/lViKMxINtZiLihMB+5qKjWwCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/tCcEECogBErU1_SWGZ9odtYAGEc>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:00 -0000

Hi,

There has been some discussion around packet numbers. For passive 
detection of packet loss in measurements and network management, it 
would be really good if the packet numbers where continuous and not only 
monotonically increasing. As this enables one to determine losses 
upstream of the measurement point. At the same time I understand there 
are benefits with being able to introduce gaps into the packet number to 
test the receiver's behaviour.

To enable both of these capabilities I would propose that the N least 
significant bits of the packet number are strictly increased by one. 
Then one can introduce gaps in the bits above the N ones. Yes, that will 
burn through the packet number space faster as the gaps may become 
larger than was the case without this. However, I don't see that this 
will have significant effect unless the sender introduce gaps very 
frequently so that the length of the packet number field needs to be 
much larger due to the outstanding sequence number space is much larger.

The value of N can clearly be discussed but it should be selected so 
that reordering and common burst durations are shorter than the time to 
wrap the strictly increase amount of bits. If the higher bits are 
available to measurement node, some possibility to infer gaps will also 
be possible. It might be that N needs to be scaled with throughput with 
a minimal value. N=8 would mean 256 packets between wraps. I think that 
is a reasonable minimal value. However, that will wrap in 28 ms at 100 
mbps of payload (assuming 1400 bytes of payload per packet).

So what people think about this idea?


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Technologies, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------