Re: [tcpm] Questions about TLP

[Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:09 AM Matt Olson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Also, section 6.5.1 Step 1 is presented as a complete set of conditions for scheduling a PTO, but it is missing a bullet point for TLPRxtOut.
Thanks for checking: but checking TLPRxtOut is not necessary and is
not preferred when scheduling a probe -- the goal is to prevent more
than one probe inflight, so checking right before TLPRxtOut sending the next one
allows the best coverage of application-limited writes (burst-idle-burst-...).




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:33 PM
> To: Yi Huang <huanyi=[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Matt Olson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Questions about TLP
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:48 PM Yi Huang <huanyi=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi RACK/TLP authors,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have the following questions (page numbers refer to draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-05):
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.In page 16, it says “Finally, if the time at which an RTO would fire (here denoted "TCP_RTO_expire") is sooner than the computed time for the PTO, then a probe is scheduled to be sent at that earlier time.” What does this TCP_RTO_expire actually mean? Does it mean there is another RTO timer (possibly started some time in the past) running along with PTO or just RTT + 4*RTTVar + Now()? Also, why would another probe be sent at RTO expiration time instead of treating it like RTO and collapsing the cwnd?
>
> TCP_RTO_expire() should return a timeout value for regular RTO, i.e.
> SRTT + 4*RTTVAR + Now()
> We use TCP_RTO_expire() because many implementations including Linux do not use the exact RFC formula
>
> The reason it's not treated as a regular RTO is to avoid resetting congestion window to 1. The rationale is if the probe was sent within min(PTO, RTO) and was delivered successfully, there's no need to reset congestion window and re-start slow-start, similar to the rationale of Reno's fast recovery reducing window to ssthresh instead of 1. We have found this strategy benefits wireless connections, as the chance of spurious RTO is high due to the delay variation.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.In page 18 section 6.6, a new variable TLPRxtOut is defined and it is stated that TLPRxtOut is used to guarantee that there is only one outstanding TLP retransmission.. However, it is not clear to me when TLPRxtOut should be really used. Should it be used in 6.5.1 Step. 1 (checking whether we should and can schedule a TLP) or in TLP_send_probe()?
>
> This is in
>
> 6.6.2.  Recording loss probe states
>
>    Senders MUST only send a TLP loss probe retransmission if TLPRxtOut
>    is false.  This ensures that at any given time a connection has at
>    most one outstanding TLP retransmission.  This allows the sender to
>
> but I agree it'd be more clear to include this in TLP_send_probe() pseudo code. I'd incorporate in the next rev.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Yi
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmaolson%40micr
> > osoft.com%7C66db44672e3d4101d72908d6cec82001%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> > cd011db47%7C1&amp;sdata=n8rp5Emowm459iSKolhIP1hFXBs8pZjsGG2iy3OBAno%3D
> > &amp;reserved=0