Re: [Rdma-cc-interest] Side meeting plans at IETF-106 - network fast feedback

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rdma-cc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rdma-cc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA4D120144 for <rdma-cc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 04:09:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Yf_YTsIV9GoF for <rdma-cc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 04:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 6C4DE12003E for <rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 04:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id BB9162D2297F8C0ECFB9 for <rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:06 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.96]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:08:59 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Paul Congdon <paul.congdon@tallac.com>
CC: "rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org" <rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Rdma-cc-interest] Side meeting plans at IETF-106 - network fast feedback
Thread-Index: AdWZUOxsi4WQYRFUR0mpYlboQPrO4g==
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:08:58 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23DB8772@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.210.170.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rdma-cc-interest/eUBBRbSXr1AVrYf29kyrwo1--bw>
Subject: Re: [Rdma-cc-interest] Side meeting plans at IETF-106 - network fast feedback
X-BeenThere: rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Control for Large Scale HPC/RDMA Data Centers <rdma-cc-interest.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rdma-cc-interest>, <mailto:rdma-cc-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rdma-cc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rdma-cc-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rdma-cc-interest>, <mailto:rdma-cc-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:12 -0000

Hi Lars,
Thanks and hope you can make the side meeting as for 

> 2.2 Network Fast Feedback 
> 
> Discuss follow-on feedback on MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "tools.ietf.org" claiming to be https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-even-iccrg-dc-fast-congestion-00 which is expected to be introduced in ICCRG on Monday.  The draft discusses the state-of-the-art congestion controllers in use and from research, and poses a number of questions for discussion. What is to be researched and what could/should be standardized going forward?

This is the beginnings of a survey. It misses a ton of related work esp. from academia though. HOMA, pFabric, HULL, D3, PDQ, pHost, NDP, etc., etc.


When you say RDMA, you mean RoCE? Separate RoCE into a slice and move on. It's pointless to try and optimize for coexistence with a protocol that can change willy-nilly.

RE: The motivation was not a survey but to show the different alternatives for providing congestion information and propose direction for reporting congestion and handling it for Data Centers.  I sure did not cover all related work.
The alternatives  from the network perspective:

  1.  Based on estimation of network status: Traditional TCP, Timely.

   2.  Network provides limited information: DCQCN using only ECN, SCE
       and L4S

   3.  Network provides some information: HPCC.

   4.  Network provides proactive control: RCP (Rate Control Protocol) 

Proposing 3 and 4 for future direction. We did some initial tests and will present them in the side meeting (not enough time in ICCRG)

If there will be an interest also in a more comprehensive survey  I will be happy to get help from people who would like to see such a survey.

Roni

-- 
Rdma-cc-interest mailing list
Rdma-cc-interest@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rdma-cc-interest