IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis questions

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Wed, 28 July 2021 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.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 77E603A145F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.499, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 QvGagQbgqijG for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 460A43A1453 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id l11-20020a7bc34b0000b029021f84fcaf75so3132314wmj.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hh4uR8HbYrkkCH5n/8ZiCr2u1a5O2K2D+a2npo65YOA=; b=gt9+W43SX4bw6atzTfSUnjJfYYxspdzBs8gVJ7MozNMU424xIuw1tcznqtCP0BFwOC Edy0i9OcfK+Q4Ybgt2k1yga77LzNK28xNqDG4HjwLiPnjTxSDpMxIJDTeUbQ6h2+apyo 7wdglZEBreEhsgxJ0q5P1NMqMOkSEKpZInKR8Pmbb/goRahr7ONbqsiHBzEPUClNyEqU F/oC0wJKO5xK8LPXbOHAYKF7V+3iRewPw1xcdZRxF5JFJFynsBdjdatCeAKuZTQrST7n 6m5WD9oi7j/LoQVarjmdKjAl/eDnZOZxtSqF3UWhEZ+u77p//xMhnItZBpxgtiWM4bkb zbSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hh4uR8HbYrkkCH5n/8ZiCr2u1a5O2K2D+a2npo65YOA=; b=dPlBU7kLmPvFBrsLWK1dqST/oPpP9178dHm7atKKYSWKtAELlyBs1dqmg2QEfgt3iK l80XzLSxL27vNnqa4YP6FOZLTkTb2TjI99J6kD/sXEEycxLqa6C2sRCai/TFTN+mW7U7 8FbzNxcI+Ba9vCMwYCvF2YE6rAWAx4WWaZrt0Oxq+9aSlGtTmj8QZGSBqFmbdjlUPQmv xfrZIONWUuJPnLyZuRWaF+5IeShYW1GevgkURksuJUg+4EB+Q2jPPMQcRaY1fzpDijot fgMwRASFuzN3oeMKHlS4/KT3cpI3/ckI355r4vOmoh7sY7s7SXZA5Q1OeDxc3RpJIWxF MEYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bQZoN7KOT/9u+B+U0U7Y7Tg+c8iP7888ZaKzGQNLwrk8Txy5L 9nBAOUq6oTPqmkZsyDP813MSWokmPAm9niPJfejeBA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwIUWR/+ybB/lLhQM91Z0IRcXPPfRKHdWeuyBNUKYxKhCtFofBIXtx06JthM26Wru6BiVNbMF82485jAiaFZk=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f206:: with SMTP id s6mr24044981wmc.102.1627433904031; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SA0PR00MB103641CC616E1E29A7761528B6EA9@SA0PR00MB1036.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SA0PR00MB103641CC616E1E29A7761528B6EA9@SA0PR00MB1036.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:57:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=cia-1U+Q-wiw4H+U3FV4fDxqp-4JEsH6mZZm09kYvE-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "vidhi_goel@apple.com" <vidhi_goel@apple.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bf8bcd05c8247b4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/DcAtRj8Jv-JOSr_FAwtJZjTa_5E>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis questions
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:58:39 -0000

btw it seems RFC5681 is even more conservative in dealing with stretched
acks in terms of ABC adoption.

sec 3.1

"During slow start,....  While
   traditionally TCP implementations have increased cwnd by precisely
   SMSS bytes upon receipt of an ACK covering new data, we RECOMMEND
   that TCP implementations increase cwnd, per:

      cwnd += min (N, SMSS)                      (2)

   where N is the number of previously unacknowledged bytes acknowledged
   in the incoming ACK.  This adjustment is part of Appropriate Byte
   Counting [RFC3465] and provides robustness against misbehaving
   receivers that may attempt to induce a sender to artificially inflate
   cwnd using a mechanism known as "ACK Division" [SCWA99]."



On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:54 PM Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=
40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> As discussed in the working group meeting, can you please clarify what
> behavior changes an implementation will see as a result of adopting
> 8312-bis versus RFC 8312? Particularly interested to know which changes
> will result in improved performance.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email