IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] A clarification about draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDBA1A8941 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:55:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 MOl80EKzn656 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22e.google.com (mail-yk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22e]) (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 0EF5C1A891F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr3 with SMTP id r3so147694654ykd.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:55:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=LWb4Vx2p3u3wtGC6wbu+8vUa3LOQWLX+2XenWWsBLY8=; b=dFsgu5w1qdWw+gipHojXu3o9I+pexVFhcpM1d4QcW+OwRBU+M550g7joVSGfj0jH5Q 6iSlBOJ76y8K4xpMR+wj77Ggy65gqH1AmDwad3lEB5H+57kP3AA4qmHyusbn30GuMYun Y/Lvgy6DDsCneOIpq1vfICl7R06/vCTIEeEhcAmeKbc5K+lUHc7X0pN+NkFTpFQT3LBN wDqZ2kVeMY69fitEyUhEou1HZ+ut6iDKyBT1kXMoy5AlXJWIgOtmN7KDfJzN7yBqXSp6 Sd97rLlbr8y2zzqVo0omSH1qUph3O1k/acZs4Kb/1spUCCKE7COeh2Wo3GaZsp3/c9Nd Hwgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=LWb4Vx2p3u3wtGC6wbu+8vUa3LOQWLX+2XenWWsBLY8=; b=EgIwitX6aXx8f859W+w1pHPSsF/e1NMsOcBCUTONp5DZTyOksElUQazaPD9eNnYy0c EAFZw3PrNWjwd2czBtgSWad2b1W0fwamhX4KAnvF/7uxMp180Qqezo7+O66CigIGMFgk n8GSrxXy1x3uFFcFqpecYCbGALGxn2/x9cmh/BSSrXOweMNqKmUtfYCnMEaDYoVs5hOv /g7nn7IHzQnwKhi0KBXLVC/lb6RU0dIllUPR6xbnCnCEX8zoLiuLpfXCCOhcKaZfQCMX oktF1DCyLU6iigj65Tz070hRwszA24yL4Ofvq9tM+UYiGIPU6H3Y6tYNFcP27hg3S8hh 2Xvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGVnujGi5TJDVl6NRerzzRgK7E8k8RaxIxf/gKwaNq6/T29nZULyTyoXU7f0lp3KHKxApb
X-Received: by 10.31.47.207 with SMTP id v198mr8513917vkv.145.1446749705822; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:55:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.189.19 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:54:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CB6F97E6-7EBE-45F3-A1D6-40ECF39BEB14@ifi.uio.no>
References: <CB6F97E6-7EBE-45F3-A1D6-40ECF39BEB14@ifi.uio.no>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:54:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=cD_nQ=kQ4=ghOc944WF717foTQO-zMrrJTTiCHh-MiqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114336bc4c18660523cfaa0b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/GrF0Ts3ezNmAjRiofCCfM-1LElA>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] A clarification about draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 05 Nov 2015 18:55:08 -0000

Some data points to the Linux implementation: we've found it more harmful
than useful, and have disabled it at Google (internal/external) for years.

Externally: IP no longer serves a good index. e.g., DHCP, NAT. Therefore
most if not all metrics are brittle.
Even for places where IP indexing still works: reusing ssthresh from TCP
just recovered from timeout will force the new TCP to exit slow start right
away





On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just watched the video of TCPM and noticed a minor confusion at the end
> about what the plan really is - because draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing just
> contains a table contrasting RFC 2140 to implementations, and are we aiming
> at Informational or a recommendation?
>
> Our plan is to update RFC 2140 to bring it in line with today's reality -
> what is currently implemented. I think Informational is still fine as
> status (but open to debate if people feel otherwise).
>
> Why didn't we write RFC2140bis but a separate document? Because one of the
> chairs suggested this as a way forward, rather than doing a full first
> version of RFC2140bis, given that we believed that just showing this table
> and opening it for discussion is the best way to get this started.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email