Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Thu, 16 June 2016 22:25 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5612DB45; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 1_vB2Jp_0XzS; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D2012D11E; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 31E1BC9416; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:25:48 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Message-ID: <20160616222548.GB77166@verdi>
References: <ccf9f2d7-2694-4336-0ec9-ccfebfeb0120@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F585D3E@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <d97e30a7-70f5-26d0-c3a4-0497c669f5f6@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F586054@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <D19E595F-7C66-4AE9-92B4-D550A93F634D@csperkins.org> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F589335@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F589335@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/5OGQNin5s6pbFexIuLB9eKuzPs4>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:25:54 -0000
Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote: > > ... I view the current text as providing implementers with too much > latitude to ignore ECN-CE marks (e.g., because an implementer doesn't > want to think about this problem space in the first place). Understand, we have at least two proposals to make ECN-CE more frequent than packet drop would be for non-ECN packets: possibly substantially more frequent. Unless both are killed off, ECN-CE will show up frequently enough that closing the flow on ECN-CE would kill too many connections. If you want circuit-breaking on such connections, there are two ways: 1. convince the forwarding nodes to drop packets if their queue exceeds design capacity; or 2. require the sender to send enough not-ECN-capable packets so that our receiver will see enough packet-drops when a circuit-breaker should activate. (I prefer the first option; but I wouldn't object to the second.) There really isn't any way for our circuit-breaker to know _how_much_ more frequent the ECN-CE marks may be. :^( We _will_ be sorry if we allot the same frequency of CE packets as packet-drops to trigger the circuit-breaker. > Could someone propose initial text to qualifies the current "MAY ignore" > statement? Essentially, for the second option, you might propose text to the effect of: ] ] If too many ECN-CE packets are received, the sender SHOULD send some ] not-ECN-capable packets to determine whether enough packets along the ] path are being dropped to justify activating our circuit-breaker. I'm not enthusiastic about adding that; but it would resolve the issue. BTW, I'm 100% convinced that either of the proposals being considered in TSVWG could bring _substantial_ benefit to RTCWEB traffic. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: dra… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… gorry
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… Gorry (erg)
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] [AVTCORE] WG Last Call on ch… John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on ch… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: dra… Black, David
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: dra… John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: dra… Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtc… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: dra… Black, David