Re: [tcmtf] Next steps with TCM-TF - TCP

gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon, 09 September 2013 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208FA11E8118 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3mEBwHq7VUk for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1861011E810E for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.erg.abdn.ac.uk (blake.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.210.30]) by spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95CB02B4265; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:36:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 212.159.18.54 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by www.erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:36:31 +0100
Message-ID: <d104b6113420e4c8f7abe0d79549771a.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <017d01cead79$25240a10$6f6c1e30$@unizar.es>
References: <017d01cead79$25240a10$6f6c1e30$@unizar.es>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:36:31 +0100
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: jsaldana@unizar.es
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Next steps with TCM-TF - TCP
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:36:39 -0000

Responding just to tcmtf, on the TCP challenge:

The challenge below for supporting TCP doesn't seem to be expressed quite
correct - the issue I understood was not related to RTT, but to the packet
timing where a re-timing of packets would impact TCP's ACK clocking and
self-pacing.

Gorry

<snip>

> However, in the BoF it was also clear that there are some concerns that
> have
> to be issued before chartering. The main one is the interaction between
> TCM
> optimization and TCP mechanisms. Since TCP controls its rate depending on
> the RTT, the addition of a multiplexing delay may modify and even harm TCP
> behavior.
>
>
<snip>
> Jose Saldana
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>