Re: [tcpm] "David's proposal" for cc class terms (was RE: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking)

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 13 November 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 E2BAC120018; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:49:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
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 VmppLy5x1j9J; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27DDC1209F9; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:49:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=4POzk0qvH2LtwoTNDU2ei2q3ZOqLIiDiXqCv1S0atDM=; b=p6DLEk26UQlZXclEKQ0BAzA3z jQymZzHcXC3MeAMWCBDIC4qQvNpPLWRUn3rtqtgt074O2C+qQqwQMvlSqTdpOER3dRdVeUpi3vIo/ vTCxPYHoErgNyjFgEHRdSC/gxwzvAyWsyJCSoUlBdtf+Rz+n3C4RgFrYQTTsG1OoSBDWHPbLYg9Rj XJui0gYOpRZ+5ez9ZDsBKVG2FDzgoDTdUVH5fTFNCLbd7ce8zR+SVJ2u5Pio79ivVG6Uo0AI4EdHx stBUeXr0yH0gzkebD8woPJ68LQQBTtE3wuCHIf6j2kINCs7POT5vmIcK8RMggUb1l5X6L5WzoxL3C zVIzm5nBg==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=52668 helo=[192.168.0.5]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1iV2OO-00053Y-62; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:49:44 +0000
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR19MB4045EAFC55061858895E2F0983760@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6c9a30d4-eec8-d82f-59b4-37e9f797ae91@mti-systems.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <b2d32bfb-4f33-336f-ce73-d3e83b2895e6@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:49:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6c9a30d4-eec8-d82f-59b4-37e9f797ae91@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AC43FCC3F6E5686D1565221B"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/MIxZoObkY3jvEUckn9de3Uzjv14>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] "David's proposal" for cc class terms (was RE: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking)
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, 13 Nov 2019 23:49:50 -0000

David, Wes,

On 13/11/2019 17:43, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On 11/13/2019 11:15 AM, Black, David wrote:
>>
>> In more detail than I explained earlier: in this forum
>>
>> We are dealing with two classes of congestion controls.  For lack of 
>> better terms the following class names are based on what the 
>> transport protocol throughput is proportional to where ‘p’ is the 
>> loss and/or congestion marking probability:
>>
>> - 1/sqrt(p)-class congestion controls: Includes most existing TCP 
>> congestion control algorithms, e.g., NewReno, CUBIC.
>>
1/sqrt(p) only describes the worst case that the coupled dualq AQM is 
designed to allow for. It includes cubic in it's reno-friendly regime, 
as well as beyond that. It includes compound and a whole host of 
slightly more aggressive congestion control variants than Reno, as well 
as ABE variants of each. It includes the proprietary congestion 
controllers used in Skype, Hangouts, Facetime, Zoom, Whereby, etc. It 
includes rmcat congestion controllers.

So I wouldn't want to use a name that implied everything in this class 
obeyed (or had to obey) a 1/sqrt law.


Bob


>> - 1/p-class congestion controls: Includes DCTCP congestion control.
>>
>> Keep in mind that p is a probability that is usually << 1 when 
>> expressed as a decimal, e.g., p=0.01 represents a 1% loss/marking rate.
>>
> "Scalable" is the term we've been using in the L4S documents for 1/p, 
> defined in l4s-arch as:
>
>    Scalable Congestion Control:  A congestion control where the packet
>       flow rate per round trip (the window) is inversely proportional to
>       the level (probability) of congestion signals.  Then, as flow rate
>       scales, the number of congestion signals per round trip remains
>       invariant, maintaining the same degree of control.  For instance,
>       DCTCP averages 2 congestion signals per round-trip whatever the
>       flow rate.
>
>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/