Re: [tcpm] flow control and fast recovery

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.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 8934B21F99E8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuSV4zYFsmeP for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B89E11E81DE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,918,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="42719026"
Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2013 00:01:23 -0700
Received: from SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.1.122]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:01:22 -0700
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] flow control and fast recovery
Thread-Index: AQHOlyPNgsJoqGMh40+oTzEhNOXFf5mTFhwAgACsbICAARJqgIAAeiKAgADkVwCABvrFQA==
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:22 +0000
Message-ID: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25CD0059@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <5205547D.90608@palermo.edu> <CAO249ye6brLzWTa8QAaAA=FVbW04_adGoyA9A96TF7UmR3bKyg@mail.gmail.com> <5207C7B6.7020700@palermo.edu> <20130811190504.GA11031@cpaasch-mac> <52087B8B.1060204@palermo.edu> <CAO249ycNAZJsNuCQB_BOZg6rLBRGzNyqaK=MEpxcOR322f2Zeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK6E8=cjfj6YQ7s=awLUWFdv=N9ZMoeohajwDnMdLLRm8CwqRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO249yfAAY4_N1zg9fw9t11RH-BPAF5p2GhPu3r0FLYXY0pXXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK6E8=eLxHqMR0HjmFnwHFe127TCkmjLJLQ2RrHJFgWxfcny3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO249yfXJG5fPvhkKpqSdoRuPrC_4Q8_nvpnMFWw9meMpgioSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO249yfXJG5fPvhkKpqSdoRuPrC_4Q8_nvpnMFWw9meMpgioSw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.53]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] flow control and fast recovery
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:44 -0000

HI Yoshifumi,

> > Note once the pipe is below ssthresh PRR will do slow-start, just like
> > normal CC.
> 
> Oh. I see. Thanks for pointing out.
> Then, I think at least we should avoid slow-start increase when TCP
> retransmits retransmited packets, although I don't have a clear idea for
> the best behavior in this kind of situation, yet.
> Because this is basically an indication of packet loss during recovery
> phase.


So far, lost retransmission detection, or fast recovery of a lost retransmission, has not been mentioned in any RFC; the default behavior of stack compliant with the RFCs is to run into a RTO - which is a pretty hefty reaction to continued loss (congestion indication) during recovery. OTOH, one particular OS has demonstrated, that by simply ignoring the congestion signal due to lost retransmissions also doesn't lead to an instant network meltdown.

Once I've finished what I'm currently focused on, I would like to submit a paper to sketch out lost retransmission detection and recovery (with SACK). I think such a draft would be the proper place to mention the expected behavior.

Best regards,

Richard Scheffenegger