Re: [Stackevo-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 25 March 2016 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF48312D147 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 BSDP5qkAG8ff for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EBBA12D641 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c63so122070925iof.0 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VzltDGC2uBBHH+CjVLwWWph7gNARrE4gCFWcE2FFrCY=; b=wOG3JZSrgbAQeCDtJ0huaHX5o1SIIuuvw9bsUNs4XPQA6afkQMkO6GnSUVgumsj1Z6 z6yzfjcOE/jEM9fdRIW5TFIvyZ5zdoE3uW2z5d5zM5Y3SR7KDeC8sbNH1UfkzYa9emoi I0UpVeckdtTl7XAM/aIQyTBjl6vnEqa3T0SEjKR1hiZf5mcjnDdp35wn17LTpl+NsuPc zId7y1WD8fiNJ0/9U5F0b16b1/Mb7a0M6w4fk23o7ZEO/v07AUpaRn4W44xeKnEVhUfs qMNK7ZewvzFqMQsi1+QGzXZcFNCqK4zrwRO5n9IFTsjBm+ctQVR5ZYxPBw/lToMjHHCY Bk8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VzltDGC2uBBHH+CjVLwWWph7gNARrE4gCFWcE2FFrCY=; b=TWQ6BRj7FmXkkcgii53BAYkOKH0VMalHi6zVvO2t2hlC3q66+pHBbM4ohYK7twkCrz cVwm5eeFQxLal7Cdv8ft5CnjsSisIbdqftLRWcAY9REsts8S0OsWWVcNeGxf3eHWWNlI b2bBC57KSAPIpw+7HMm20mY3qSWR9fwism/TDpbyJyteAZ4YmzZWTnVHD/Vhd1/2ySkV EpSlr6fkUvyc8jkVk4JrUT6WfUIC20A42yba0Ab6/CGXNRTWUDB06M1yH4qw8mVQpyDs X5gjdPFmjx7w8yaBNkWx0ztlU6AsmkPm+ivdZI/uVj7JmXLiGFR/Z/Xex5Plinc9o5He W/WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLDJgM1QlVjlBJrolyosdXPZWHkuw9B6ZM8vyEqnWWPPtEud2xwQv8lmQ6uv5FJLUudwUcozYG7Fa6pjQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.152.142 with SMTP id a136mr15429256ioe.84.1458925527428; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.130.198 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56F5538D.3040408@gmail.com>
References: <A741874C-0E2C-4905-9FD3-D29B4B94A9C0@ifi.uio.no> <56F3212B.5020408@isi.edu> <20F3E6FF-DED4-46BD-BFD5-C76F8A6A8D40@ifi.uio.no> <56F32C47.6080707@isi.edu> <271375F3-2B9D-4C61-9C6E-468E6423A1A4@ifi.uio.no> <56F427D9.9030208@isi.edu> <C6E55B03-FD33-4EAB-B814-8A4C3E9657EA@ifi.uio.no> <56F5538D.3040408@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:05:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34n8iz4KgZeop3TRqJWtHR=eAOt37=s7K8aZKy388Hkhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/nqkENh6ida17AqRSRfKcPBZorzY>
Cc: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:11:05 -0000

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 25/03/2016 09:12, Michael Welzl a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> On 24. mar. 2016, at 18.46, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2016 1:20 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 24. mar. 2016, at 00.52, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Having one uniform layer at which multiplexing occurs makes
>>>>> things easy. Having two means you have to wonder what the
>>>>> other is doing all the time and whether the two correlate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this a real practical problem related to this draft?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a real practical problem anytime you tunnel.
>>
>>
>> Even when the method avoids that packets grow in size?
>
>
> The size of the tunnelled packets may not be as big as expected problem.
>  For example, additional 40bytes on wireless are not that bad as
> initially expected, simply because the total size is already around
> 1280bytes before tunneling.
>
> On another hand, this problem of multiplexing at multiple levels makes
> it that there is no 'traceroute' program that meaningfully reports
> number of hops through tunnels.  This is a universal tool for network
> debugging, maybe as loved as ping is.
>
I believe https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute-01
is the proposed solution for that.

> Overlay networks grow for a while and then get levelled down into
> 'native' multiplexing level if I can say so.  For example IPv6 tunnels
> over an IPv4 world moved to IPv6 native (3ffe disappeared a while back
> and 6to4 recently; each had a different way of relating two multiplexing
> levels).
>
> For TCP in UDP there would be a myriad ways of mixing the slow
> intelligence of TCP with the quick dumbness of UDP.  After trying them
> all would one come back to TCP and UDP side-by-side as before?  Why not?
>
> Is TCP-in-UDP as reliable as TCP?  Or is it more subject to packet loss
> and longer retries?
>
> Is TCP-in-UDP useful for video streaming from constrained devices, as
> useful as UDP is?
>
> Does TCP-in-UDP require rendez-vous points?
>
> Alex
>
>
>> I’m surprised but I’m not going to debate this further: you provided
>> a useful pointer (the tunnels draft in INTAREA), I’ll have to take a
>> look and try to understand the problem. Anyway I agree that a
>> solution like the v6 flow labe that Tom Herbert suggested is nicer; I
>> have nothing at all against that and now plan to incorporate it in
>> the next version of the draft, for the v6 case.
>>
>> As for the congestion control related bits of your email, I made a
>> mistake: I started this off saying “let’s discuss this in ICCRG”,
>> but then I follow up a discussion here on stackevo. This is purely
>> about congestion control, so it really belongs there. My next email
>> in this matter will go to you, cc iccrg.
>>
>> Cheers, Michael
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Stackevo-discuss
>> mailing list Stackevo-discuss@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo-discuss mailing list
> Stackevo-discuss@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss