Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Tue, 09 February 2021 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B316F3A12AE for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 00:36:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 LJzkpx6FDUXk for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 00:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 617FC3A12AC for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 00:36:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1612859758; bh=LOVCIodFafoUdROve69GkZQaiZr/UfIyyHeQcSMP2wA=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bxWZiLFHaaQS7G4Tayt5kLbL8r8umPeDXN0Lks8qZAa7AocEdPrisXQ3og3u8/9HZ iFmj6HlF6OTMBPctz2dQWT3GGmUrrfSjIbZht9vUW+5m22plGv8YWY7UEnlIxqq80r adwyur9Bvt+FNIP7G/xBYjGHecAQdidjWs2Cq5n0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.1.199] ([178.165.131.138]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M2wL0-1lCgoj2lUS-003OgR; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 09:35:58 +0100
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <CAH56bmCkmtvqTRaEC-AFd-_W1nWeE0JE9SMt=w8E5JoHvvnVtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAK044T7POu9YCU_=Gf5St-A5s8bnv0fhCuWASqD6_tz6_Hdvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53b0114f-054f-3814-eb04-d55f360bd52d@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 09:35:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAK044T7POu9YCU_=Gf5St-A5s8bnv0fhCuWASqD6_tz6_Hdvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Ed3Q0Ne7azC/s7mLHmp/gr8wXji9KorpU23N//anDYemjnq4Smr ctybndC7bVJSx4c/qRUIHqLMsxKq7tWZKfOUycHeaEhWpl7tg0qEZQ9r6WGWr28LkDkmN32 tmD6Auh2uA+WNcCFkyavFQ+Lqc4PNPwSt4w7sKFF9C0LKACexVEYH0chlR6o+mnD/5IBHDn ailV1HueEDMxdIgqnqUHQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:MRcdDLhNbOM=:OK9w6O/X2gBAbOdJemIuSh A/pdL7f/jpgJ6eFoRP9gcuHSuhbwSSvADaV+h5mTZbY2OJOlpMH8cHfv0wSRIdeRXbBfkha31 W1zyY0ZFLUndbqM6uZEbGUeXJDqkUxJbpJ16LcAb2dEXxN4Rt7kB5gIQhiV2GO3OLUItnROmN velt9QbOcZNw9Cy/TfvAVUh/QLBglrzBBfGoI4GVcmrIHtEh52cAFicVL8RJAnhR0Pm7P3VLa r7ytF7jjx26vMLEnnh/xj0qpfeDKpQjfc/hWEmu6UjwOYEdt3WR8BDoqnYu3u0IocUvImhd8n DiKgHFQJDAM5UngZvHDz/pgQl5czuzJMQQxmcSqKifTBgvqjgSv+gd4roJrk06o6sFgKWwIqI mAS4uxVSYRX5tE32WbSS6g3Jdw0WFnhHAJOiM0yRjqZrP1KhccHdEbhKxS8tBF+X+6Al6HBXc ta9SxufC4uh1OnVVjYQucRb4PDkJIEuDLFvHZOjYod4mSJd08Aqr4B6M4i3w2cjzeqnb1A+HD ZNPyskQRZSldl1+lAT8RuONq8bgszp7PFdJcwAu/FKdMAKHRcaQ7rgEyzlqAFDq8+LeehhGZu dP4aer211ZG0VomQ5xDcueg4QDc0xqFelFsXicqZ0spvo+u9tCghR/zFh/kGSlcb1c3dDH/vl TO1EsXUWpfa75iKB9+ZymONpHvdlxe2E81bLH2kd3WEzxHJJvRmNGSQioH3XuANFAx5jiI8br 3z6LkIDvBKNuKqw3ywgUyoSeVC8TXsHtBiTULgZB/0WvN/asjaEnZgnArfBv+Ri7bAgVb5J/s Dhnla7zfgrxIYMfvzRiC5IPb0FzFyBBytp6sPEDuXua5of77LhGfWx/vNRo26viAij/phCLBY 4ipqbeeZCr5umgLX+xjQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/-v32lBfzny_04f6I1ej772FsEYM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 08:36:06 -0000

FWIW, PRR has been included in FBSD13 as default.

That implementation my be a bit rough at the edges - the particular case
to deal with "broken" token-bucket traffic policers mentioned by Matt
using an automatic heustric is not in, and if encountered, need to be
dealt with manually.


Richard


Am 30.11.2020 um 19:12 schrieb Yoshifumi Nishida:
> Hi folks,
>
> This mail starts a WG adoption call for RFC6937bis draft.
> As we've already seen positive supports for this work, we are not asking
> people who already expressed their opinions this time. (but, if you want
> to do it for some reason, please go ahead)
> However, if you haven't done it yet, especially if you're against it, we
> would like to encourage you to provide feedback.
>
> We are thinking that the intended status of the doc will be PS based on
> the feedback we've seen so far. But, if you have opinions on it, please
> let us know.
>
> Thank you so much,
> --
> Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:56 PM Matt Mathis
> <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>     The authors of PRR would like to update PRR to Proposed Standard
>     status.  This entails introducing a new document as an tcpm work item.
>
>     *Please indicate (non) support and/or comment.*
>
>     For more details see the tcpm meeting materials from IETF 109
>     minutes:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-tcpm-00
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-tcpm-00>
>     slides: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mathis-tcpm-rfc6937bis-00
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mathis-tcpm-rfc6937bis-00>
>
>     There were about four "I support this work" remarks at the mic (not
>     recorded in the minutes), and about as many in the Meetecho chat.
>
>     Abridged IETF/tcpm/PRRbis slides:
>     --
>     PRR  recap (RFC6937 experimental)
>     PRR is a special congestion control effective only during fast recovery
>
>       * When inflight >= ssthresh, send at loss_beta*rate_before_loss
>         (e.g. loss_beta = 0.5 for Reno (aka rate-halving), 0.7 for Cubic)
>       * When inflight < ssthresh, send at the same or twice the
>         delivery_rate (more later)
>       * Used by all congestion control modules in Linux during fast recovery
>           o Can be more dominant than the actual C.C. for lossy flows
>             that’re in fast recovery constantly (e.g. video streaming
>             through policers)
>
>     --
>     Current Status
>
>       *
>
>         PRR is widely deployed
>
>           o
>
>             At least three major OSs: Linux, Windows, (NetFlix) BSD
>
>           o
>
>             Vast majority of Web traffic for years
>
>       *
>
>         No changes to algorithms published in RFC 6937
>
>           o
>
>             PRR-CRB - Conservative Reduction Bound - strict packet
>             conversion during loss recovery
>
>           o
>
>             PRR-SSRB - Slowstart Reduction Bound - one extra segment per
>             ACK during loss recovery
>
>       *
>
>         2015 Heuristic to dynamically select which reduction bound
>
>           o
>
>             Only use PRR-SSRB when making good forward progress
>
>               +
>
>                 ACKs that advanced snd.una and report no new losses
>
>           o
>
>             Resolves some pathological cases with token bucket policers
>
>               +
>
>                 CC estimates ssthresh before it can possibly measure the
>                 token rate
>
>               +
>
>                 The heuristic makes the best of a bad situation
>
>     --
>     Tentative path forward
>
>       *
>
>         Adopt as a tcpm work item
>
>       *
>
>         Update the text
>
>           o
>
>             Normative RFC 2119 language
>
>           o
>
>             Add MAY use the heuristic...
>
>           o
>
>             Trim redundant and obsolete language
>
>               +
>
>                 RFC 6937 repeats itself and is much longer than necessary
>
>               +
>
>                 Focus on what an implementer needs to know
>
>               +
>
>                 Use non-normative references to RFC 6937 for prior
>                 measurement work, etc
>
>     Thanks,
>     --MM--
>     The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>
>     We must not tolerate intolerance;
>             however our response must be carefully measured:
>                  too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling
>     out of control;
>                  too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
>     _______________________________________________
>     tcpm mailing list
>     tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>