Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 24 April 2014 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659181A0176 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 L3XwkURIIsTr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36461A017B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1WdHSA-0003h1-0z; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:30 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1WdHS9-0006c0-JW; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:29 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <20140423163717.GG86778@verdi>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E4B3960-4AA1-4F20-A46F-913E143AA18A@ifi.uio.no>
References: <5357B281.1030900@alvestrand.no> <CAA93jw6paiARfbd_S8_OzBLy9pxavxe9wVM_Yqte_oUaPBHxiw@mail.gmail.com> <20140423163717.GG86778@verdi>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 6 sum msgs/h 1 total rcpts 15662 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-6.1, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.051, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 09113F87B410D80791460587E0DC905AE27BDC42
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -60 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 5082 max/h 16 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gTfbznJdlCYiPsB0tk3275Yhv2c
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Apr 2014 11:04:41 -0000

On 23. apr. 2014, at 18:37, John Leslie wrote:

> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if we have a shared definition of "congestion".  Mine is
>> network delays exceeding that of what human factors research notes
>> as "perceptible" with about 20ms as the outer bound.
> 
>   I, OTOH, am quite sure we don't have a shared definition of congestion.
> 
>   My preferred definition is rate-of-arrival exceeding rate-of-forwarding.

FWIW, there's RFC 6077, which discusses definitions of congestion and congestion control in its introduction. It says:

" Congestion can be defined as a state or condition that occurs when
   network resources are overloaded, resulting in impairments for
   network users as objectively measured by the probability of loss
   and/or delay.  The overload results in the reduction of utility in
   networks that support both spatial and temporal multiplexing, but no
   reservation"

which is based on a presentation by Keshav in 2007, which, in turn, is based on the long and boring discussion about this definition that happened when ICCRG was born. Been there, done that, let's not repeat please.

Buuuuuut this seems off topic for the context here anyway... if you really want to discuss this definition, I suggest to take it to ICCRG. There, we will tell you to read the mailing list archives  :-)

Cheers,
Michael