Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00

Kangjiao <kangjiao@huawei.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <kangjiao@huawei.com>
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 C7AD93A0C42 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 qSA68UtyAjYe for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 BF1903A0C40 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 45E913C16AF09A8FA54D; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 05:38:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 05:38:41 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.38) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 05:38:41 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM534-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.122]) by dggemm421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:38:31 +0800
From: Kangjiao <kangjiao@huawei.com>
To: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
CC: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Liangqiandeng <liangqiandeng@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00
Thread-Index: AQHWXb+HJHOpbU0oSkKL2jMMYvRPV6kP1fbAgAHYVoCAAryHoP//kUKAgACdjyA=
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 04:38:31 +0000
Message-ID: <719A2C1D4AC73847B6E1BF21DF1545EAE5C9AA60@dggemm534-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <719A2C1D4AC73847B6E1BF21DF1545EAE5C9A9BC@dggemm534-mbs.china.huawei.com> <213AD4B1-4F88-4389-93CE-242916C06DC8@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <213AD4B1-4F88-4389-93CE-242916C06DC8@apple.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.67.102.89]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/2aI4iM6j1J48unfoJnFkqdPyenM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 04:38:47 -0000

Hi Christoph,

From my perspective, I think following are two different requirements:
 
1. Making all the traffic towards S2 (for this case, MP_PRIO may be enough)

2. Making traffic only from <IP_C1, IP_S1> to the destination IP_S2, which means diverting traffic that should be scheduled to <IP_C1, IP_S1> to one subflow belonging to the target network interface (it is "on-demand scheduling", for this case, MP_PRIO is not enough)

What do you think?

Sincerely
Jiao

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Paasch [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 11:11 AM
To: Kangjiao <kangjiao@huawei.com>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>om>; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org>rg>; Liangqiandeng <liangqiandeng@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00

Hello,

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:01 PM, Kangjiao <kangjiao@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Christoph and Yoshi,
> 
> If I understand right, you both point to the same question whether reusing the MP_PRIO can finish accurate data scheduling for server. I think MP_PRIO may be not enough even if setting all the "non-target" subflows to backup ones. I can give a scenario:
> 
> Six subflows have been established between client and server that are <IP_C1, IP_S1>, <IP_C2, IP_S1>, <IP_C1, IP_S2>, <IP_C2, IP_S2>, <IP_C1, IP_S3> and <IP_C2, IP_S3>. The client has IP_C1 and IP_C2. The server has IP_S1, IP_S2 and IP_S3.
> 
> Server tool detects that KPI of IP_S2 is better now so the server wants to switch data traffic from <IP_C1, IP_S1> to the destination IP_S2. If we set <IP_C1, IP_S1> as "backup", it is not guaranteed that all the load over <IP_C1, IP_S1> can be diverted to IP_S2 because of the ongoing suflows towards IP_S3.

But we could simply also set <IP_C1,IP_S3> ans <IP_C2,IP_S3> as backup as well, no?

Now, all the traffic will be steered towards S2.

Christoph


> 
> So I think MP_PRIO can reduce the chance of data transmission on a specific subflow but it cannot convey the info of target network interface from server to client.
> 
> Thanks
> Jiao
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Paasch [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:00 AM
> To: Kangjiao <kangjiao@huawei.com>
> Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>om>; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions 
> <tcpm@ietf.org>rg>; Liangqiandeng <liangqiandeng@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on 
> draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00
> 
> Hello,
> 
> as an overall comment, I agree that one of the difficulties around multipath is how the hosts can communicate to the peers the desired scheduling mechanisms. Currently there is no reliable way besides backup-bits which is a "hard" switch. However, often scheduling is much more fine-grained as shown in a number of the schedulers described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers-00.
> 
> It's a bit similar to TCP which can't pick the peer's congestion-control and for example if one wants the peer to use a background-CC the host needs to resort to tuning the receive-window a la draft-bagnulo-iccrg-rledbat-00.
> 
> So, having a way to communicate the scheduling "requirements" to the peer (and let the peer match these requirements with its local policies), would be good!
> 
> 
> One more comment inline:
> 
>> On 07/20/20 - 03:54, Kangjiao wrote:
>> Hi Yoshi,
>> 
>> Thanks for your suggestions. We clarify the issues as below:
>> 
>> 1: One thing I'm not very clear is why we cannot use MP_PRIO for the 
>> use cases described in the draft. I believe the draft should describe 
>> the cases where existing features cannot fulfill the requirements 
>> more specifically.
>> 
>> KJ: The new MP_Navigation Option is used for the server to indicate 
>> destination network interface to client for which server wants to use 
>> for traffic switching. For my understanding, MP_PRIO is used to 
>> signal a change in priority of subflows to the peer. In application, 
>> MP_PRIO can reduce the chance of data transmission on a specific 
>> subflow but it cannot tell its peer which network interface is the destination from server side.
>> For example, if there are multiple subflows with high priority from 
>> difference network interfaces, client receiving MP_PRIO does not know 
>> which is the target one.
> 
> For this particular scenario the server could send the MP_PRIO with backup-bit set on all subflows that the client should not use. Thus implicitly the high-priority network-interfaces can then be used by the client, right?
> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
>> 2: Clients also have their own constraints. (e.g. policy or routing) 
>> So, even though servers send a navigation request, they might not 
>> follow it. I think this point should be clarified.
>> 
>> KJ: If the mechanism of accurate-data-scheduling-by-server is 
>> deployed, the principle is that the server takes precedence.
>> 
>> 3: What's the meaning of 'r', 'E', 'B' flags in Section 4.1?
>> 
>> KJ:  For the protocol design, the definition of ’r’, ‘E’ and ’B’ are 
>> as
>> following: Flag ‘r’: reserved for future usage.  Flag ‘E’: exists to 
>> provide reliability for this option (like that in ”ADD_ADDR”).  Flag ’B’:
>> indicates whether the subflow over which the option is received is a 
>> backup one (that is compatiable with the value by MP_PRIO).
>> 
>> But we are thinking whether these fields are necessary and should be 
>> set as mandatory.
>> 
>> Sincerely, Jiao From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Yoshifumi Nishida Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 7:26 PM To:
>> tcpm@ietf.org Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org> Subject: [tcpm] comments on
>> draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00
>> 
>> Hi, I've read draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00.  
>> I think this is an interesting topic for mptcp, but I think it would 
>> be better to clarify the following points.
>> 
>> 1: One thing I'm not very clear is why we cannot use MP_PRIO for the 
>> use cases described in the draft. I believe the draft should describe 
>> the cases where existing features cannot fulfill the requirements 
>> more specifically.
>> 
>> 2: Clients also have their own constraints. (e.g. policy or routing) 
>> So, even though servers send a navigation request, they might not 
>> follow it. I think this point should be clarified.
>> 
>> 3: What's the meaning of 'r', 'E', 'B' flags in Section 4.1?
>> 
>> Thanks, -- Yoshi
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>