Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (TCP SACK)
"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Mon, 15 November 2010 19:41 UTC
Return-Path: <rs@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811373A6CF4 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:41:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I8fT8qA7RR0n for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.netapp.com (mx3.netapp.com [217.70.210.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFFC3A6BDB for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,201,1288594800"; d="scan'208";a="219916306"
Received: from smtp3.europe.netapp.com ([10.64.2.67]) by mx3-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2010 11:41:49 -0800
Received: from amsrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (emeaexchrs.hq.netapp.com [10.64.251.107]) by smtp3.europe.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id oAFJfm0g019217; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.65.251.108]) by amsrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:41:48 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:41:46 -0000
Message-ID: <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0B7BCC48@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinvu+-qgNCQ_Ub3uym_MERmSVX8Jxw1tVkRAwPa@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (TCP SACK)
Thread-Index: ActzRniX4FJkRTZDQTyNnfWsY3iN0wRtcz3A
References: <DE08556E79FD1649AEE892A8C353EF611348C9477C@USNAVSXCHMBSA1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com><A1FD783C-6EDB-41D4-A0DE-9C77A486395D@windriver.com><5254FC29-AD81-4B83-8AC9-7C03A7F4E74C@comsys.rwth-aachen.de><49576D00-CF67-4A91-A00A-9B6CD37EEA46@windriver.com><5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0AC76DED@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com><AANLkTincZy08rQq-fCP5PrLQn5JeooZFkq=mLjJ4zibg@mail.gmail.com><5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0B02D269@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com><AANLkTi=5gRLuyqeFiN-es8oK4K0=cg=uHNpRCLdz+cLB@mail.gmail.com><20101023014200.GD12426@colt><5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0B02D296@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com><20101023132527.GE12426@colt> <AANLkTinvu+-qgNCQ_Ub3uym_MERmSVX8Jxw1tVkRAwPa@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>, Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2010 19:41:48.0154 (UTC) FILETIME=[245825A0:01CB84FD]
Subject: Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (TCP SACK)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:41:15 -0000
Hi group, Following up on the discussion prior to IETF79, I submitted a draft spec to discuss TCP SACK loss recovery at end-of-stream. I believe there was also split concensus if that should be refined further to get into RFC3517bis (as it is - IMHO - a minor change under very specific circumstances to TCP SACK), or as a standalone document. I have one preference, but refrain from pursuing it actively, as there are more senior members who know better than me on these details. Thanks a lot for your time! Richard Scheffenegger A new version of I-D, draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-sack-loss-recovery-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Richard Scheffenegger and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-sack-loss-recovery Revision: 00 Title: Improving SACK-based loss recovery for TCP Creation_date: 2010-11-15 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 12 Abstract: This note clarifies the behavior of TCP SACK while doing loss recovery close to the end-of-stream. This allows TCP SACK to never exhibit worse loss recovery characteristics than TCP NewReno under identical circumstances. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp] > Sent: Sonntag, 24. Oktober 2010 08:41 > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 SACK errata?) > > 2010/10/23 Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>: > > > S1 ... S7 are sent. S1, S6, and S7 are lost. The sender > retransmits > > S1, gets a cumulative ACK for S6, retransmits S6, then gets a > > cumulative ACK for S7. Should it retransmit S7? Did the original > > transmission or the retransmission trigger the cum ACK for S7? > > Consider the case were S6 was not lost in the first place, > but delayed > > in the network for ~1RTT. Now consider interaction with > timestamps, > > DSACK, etc. where this potentially *can* be disambiguated. > > In my feeling, this depends on the pipe size. > if cwnd - pipe >= 1 SMSS, we can send at least 1 packet. > In this example, S8 will be sent. ( rule (2) in NextSeg() > will be applied) If S8 can arrive at the receiver > successfully, the sender can get good estimation for lost > packets by the ACK for S8. Then, it can retransmit proper packets. > > However, as Richard already pointed out, if this is the end > of transmission, there is no S8. > In this case, I think retransmitting S7 will not be harmful so much. > > If this is not the end of transmission (e.g. application > stall), I'm not very sure whether we should retransmit a packet. > > Thanks, > -- > Yoshifumi Nishida > nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >
- [tcpm] missequenced TCP segments Sommars, Steven E (Steven)
- Re: [tcpm] missequenced TCP segments Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] missequenced TCP segments David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] missequenced TCP segments Alexander Zimmermann
- Re: [tcpm] missequenced TCP segments David Borman
- [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 SACK … Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (RFC2018 S… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] end-of-stream loss recovery (TCP SACK) Scheffenegger, Richard