Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06

"Richard Scheffenegger" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Mon, 19 March 2018 15:41 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 46EDA12D574; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439, 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 7ob6l8rq0U6D; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93609129C6B; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srichardlxp2 ([213.143.121.76]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MWQSM-1f8KvG21dK-00XfNz; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:41:24 +0100
Message-ID: <31CCB8D4D5D645849D5804DFB17FD030@srichardlxp2>
From: Richard Scheffenegger <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
References: <7A3A6ECE-550B-4E5F-9D61-83C8969A7B93@fh-muenster.de> <23187136694049B3BEA2C7FAD794E280@srichardlxp2> <AD0AB4B8-4FE5-4DE1-B525-AA706011463C@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:31:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ZscBVSaj22cKV6UV+tllwov3rSZNf+3foinVDbDqWz0spkSUZwk iZslhfFHrP+MFEiavFzEZ3++gXpek+E+IwgWwLpoJaX2q7o0cBUi0F0xsNzmSOCoEPkxSRk CrXL363ZZ6pZBS9wc35yZg09J7Qpf3RXWDiWdqjynuKIU2JsBM9IWJpJa7BzboYeK2kmpEx fDLCrJUaw4vfMl6+Zd4fA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RvLqD1Z6Qic=:SDBUycvs+f9j03KfJUKwuD chU9lKF6w9HICcZz0+6G3kKvsOw70LSjoPy1Kof3mwp4NonlNy0ErPulpQn3sE3YXni1YjVBF XSFxtNFyvX7MvE9qgfyyVxDD8uF2doLrk6ovnVM45cCWCBuEkzHMb6hcIDQJHMDpFg9xHPDJc GdYu5E2LjvnFoy9GEidA5rUCNO/ruvKnbbMGML26qo3hIlGLYSgRmJe66sbrCSteoX9YpNgar n7Vja+ereNK+3VSIGCCRN6onjq4vb/FLLOna6gtVKMYcXmOHG57TDIVN+XWfSOJ56wHCr+c9K /bTIemyg2XP/XAqUi+ihJzmzzqwZCbkKIYwtffARG+0YOjWr/ROW7ZuqYdKy0miiqHaSl6lGe z1S/h9wdRd66yTkNzdS6piwHf+SWLsZq35eQVWrqqRktY7qPKhYTYW6k2VGmHyXeQwrZs6VWy ixF/BALyyddsSqRddDTxGO7fbQIPTbKa0A8tVML7HPABi5Ab53rcVnIMvbUeNYq7N/lF+r0Yi +M9DHAUweiT6kxZZLrS0wXkF0VTJvoyd7cZT1HIPYDnUxKupVP4eVo/9ZcGHKyJ8YdtrHTSzM O/HDu9nd+8s4aQ8iDp70cBWNBi6PDucHmXJOSHZ4YvUm2Fk24KNxEP+yofikIRaiIYOLsJ755 YbLrtiH18DKwO2cLiGt/NrDBKCd9zCHD3JBJvOzyfAIkNKSh18bhohWn1grcp9Hwrjw8LOAEK 3kV9LQvv64q7Uwr3VNYkXGNTGkSYpdfwYC/YCZuu6KBc7SDqOKEzI2/C3OdwFkBrPD8w28Y69 sSO3J96pAvZpxYEvSeaFFNNKnGXEz31eBEp+RE+aIBNuKxCJqQ=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/BTItUUJ46ew2LnLZH3bH0WXi_7o>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:41:33 -0000

Hi Michael,

Just thinking that the difference between loss vs. ECN cwn reduction might 
be defined as a relative value of each other, rather than an absolute; In my 
example, Cubic on FreeBSD used beta 0.8, while Cubic Linux uses 0.7; with 
the research showing a sensible Cubic ECN reaction on Linux being 0.85, 
correct? (~50% closer to 1).

So when using Cubic w/ beta 0.8 (as FreeBSD), would a sensible value for 
Cubic ECN there a value of 0.9?

Best regards,
   Richard



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Welzl" <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
To: "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Cc: "Michael Tuexen" <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>; <tcpm@ietf.org>; 
<tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06


Hi,


> On Mar 1, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Richard Scheffenegger <rs.ietf@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some of the I-D references are already RFCs;
>
> Reading the FreeBSD modular cubic code, using a beta value of 0.8 (vs. 0.7 
> reportedy in Linux), I'm wondering if some generic rules-of-thumb, as to 
> what a reasonable beta_loss vs. beta_ecn adjustment would be in this RFC 
> might be in order (although I agree, that CCs should come up with 
> reasonable guidance there).

Yes, we found the choice of value to depend on the algorithm.


> Other than this, I like this draft, as it also gives some additional 
> incouragement to deploy ECN.

Thanks - we hope so too!

Cheers,
Michael

PS: When I just tried to answer this email with reply-to-all, my Apple Mail 
client offered the alias:
"tcpm-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
which it had stored as an address, as a result of the previous conversation. 
To avoid continuing the nonsense of wrongly sending to the list instead of 
the chairs in the future as this alias gets stored in email clients, I 
recommend that folks check this address carefully when sending replies.
Although, maybe don’t: it would be kind of funny to see these things happen 
more often   :-)   this certainly gave me a good laugh today.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com