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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 23 March 2016 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 BB8FD12D8EC for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 DK4b4zU2yDVH for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (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 9EC4612D92C for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aisQf-00060a-4S; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 00:43:09 +0100
Received: from 3.134.189.109.customer.cdi.no ([109.189.134.3] helo=[192.168.0.107]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aisQe-0005s3-M5; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 00:43:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <56F3212B.5020408@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 00:43:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20F3E6FF-DED4-46BD-BFD5-C76F8A6A8D40@ifi.uio.no>
References: <A741874C-0E2C-4905-9FD3-D29B4B94A9C0@ifi.uio.no> <56F3212B.5020408@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 2 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 7 sum msgs/h 4 total rcpts 39617 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 73015F0C645FC3FB70BC5C355D965B8AA6768EB1
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.134.3 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 542 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/wI0erfAsS6Mxh9kldFrrBuQwShw>
Cc: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] Fwd: 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: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:43:15 -0000

> On 24. mar. 2016, at 00.05, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/23/2016 4:42 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> I'm sending this here as well because it relates to the idea of "running the Internet over UDP" (which, I noticed, is presentation that Brian will give in MAPRG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda/maprg/ ).
>> This draft explains how we think it should be done with TCP; we believe that it can have quite significant positive side-effects, mainly because of the opportunity to combine the congestion controls of multiple connections.
> 
> Ick.
> 
> We went through this before multiple times. One notable was the impact
> of chunking and muxing in HTTP, effectively reinventing IP inside.
> 
> "A person with one watch always knows what time it is. A person with two
> is never sure.”

I don’t think I follow this, sorry.


> I can't imagine what combined congestion control of TCP would mean
> inside the network - we had a hard enough time defining it for either
> TCB sharing or the Congestion Manager just at the endpoints.

I don’t get this either; it sounds like a misunderstanding?

So the encapsulation here is just meant to force packets to take the same path - else the Congestion Manager may be doing something pretty wrong.
The sender-side behavior then couples connections; this could be done via the Congestion Manager, or in a way similar to TCB sharing, or with our algorithm (which is somewhat similar to TCB sharing). That’s why we call it “example algorithm” - think of this as “UDP encapsulation forces TCP connections on the same path so we can use the CM”. That’s really all it is.

Cheers,
Michael